Are Social Cons Saving Liberalism? Roger L. Simon Thinks So, Sees Libertarian Shift as Future of Conservatives, GOP

A few weeks back over at PJ Media, Roger L. Simon penned an interesting piece arguing that social conservatives are helping liberals out by pushing culture-war themes in an America that has long moved on to more basic economic issues of governance. It's not that personal lifestyle issues don't matter, he says, it's that most of them (maybe all of them) should be dealt with in non-political channels.

Perhaps most interestingly, this came before Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement (long overdue, IMO) that the federal government would practice marriage equality.

Citing polls that we use frequently here at Reason.com, Simon notes with approval that distrust of government is at record highs and that a new generation of kids are growing up sans a lot of their parents' baggage:

When you come down to it, virtually nothing associated with the liberal platform met with their approval — even legalization of marijuana was dealt with in most instances with a shrug — except, you guessed it, same-sex marriage.

That appears to be the one issue militating against a coming Republican majority, but it is an exceptionally potent one because it is used, fairly or not, to paint the right as bigots.  And young people, again not surprisingly, don’t want to hang with bigots — so the whole house of cards goes down.

On the other hand, I sensed no hostility toward religious people.  Several of these kids were religious — a few devoutly. They were quite thoughtful on the subject of abortion with a variety of  views. But to them gay marriage was a done deal. Remember, they come from a generation in which nearly all of their gay contemporaries are out. These are their friends and classmates that are being discriminated against.

In terms of politics, Simon looks toward libertarianism as the ideology of the future. Not because it stops discussion over any issue, but because libertarianism removes many of those issues from politics and put them back in places better suited to hashing out differences. It's a stark - and I think convincing - message to conservatives and one they should heed when considering political alliances. Any energy coming from Republicans these days is because of the large failure of Barack Obama and liberal Democrats' political agenda and because of the libertarian wing of the GOP and its focus on civil liberties, foreign policy, and fiscal rectitude. It's not because cultural warriors are getting the vapors over the gays or drugs or the need to triple defense spending.

People under 40 (plus or minus a decade!) simply don't think about things the way Americans did a generation or two ago and many of the political linkages borne out of the Cold War era in U.S. politics - especially on a broadly defined right - are simply defunct. Indeed, even among religious Americans, the once-hugely important dividing lines among Evangelicals, Catholics, and Jews have dissolved in a way that was unthinkable during Ronald Reagan's first presidential term (back then, ecumenism was a dirty word and Jerry Falwell was as likely to fulminate against Roman Catholics as against any group in America).

Simon concludes:

I have to say in all candor that political opposition to same-sex marriage is the Achilles’ heel of the right going into 2016. Social conservatives who intend to make a serious issue out of it should realize that the fallout from their views could adversely affect all of us in a catastrophic way.

No one is going to be happy here. SoCons who continue to press this issue on the political (not the personal or religious) stage have to realize that they are damaging many of us who have other concerns domestic and foreign, many of which we would probably agree on more easily.

This is a great moment.  A seriously smaller government is a real possibility with electoral victories in 2014 and 2016.  Let’s not jeopardize them by emphasizing an issue more properly, and unquestionably more successfully, dealt with in the private realm.

Read his whole column.

Simon's libertarian swerve started a discussion among other PJ Media columnists, which is gathered here.

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.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Remember, they come from a generation in which nearly all of their gay contemporaries are out.

    And nobody he knows voted for Nixon.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Some people have other ideas…
    Shooting An Elephant

  • SweatingGin||

    Worth reading just for this line: "Leaving the mainstream right with an audience of 70-year-old Lipitor addicts is a worthwhile goal."

  • GILMORE||

    I went and read it.

    In general, I think the guy is spot-on, if maybe a bit too fatalist in his assumptions about the DOOM of right-politics in the modern world. (necessitating a 'rope a dope' with the left to let it expend its resources)

    That said, I noticed while reading it that the Dampier character tweeted the following -

    "
    Henry Dampier @henrydampier

    Comment on @reason just sent 62 people to 'Shooting an Elephant'

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/02.....nt_4300103

    Sorry, gaybertarianism"

    I'm no expert, but I think he just called all of you a bunch of fags. Classy!

  • Just Sayin'||

    Well, he really wouldn't be far from wrong, would he?

  • GILMORE||

    Sorry, I didn't realize "Gaybertarianism" was a statement actually claiming something that was 'right or wrong'.

    it sort of just amounted to this =

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lzREqEHMM0

    Because adults talk like that.

    I also think warty would take particular offense and say, 'ITS NOT GAY WHEN ITS RAPE'

  • RishJoMo||

    Dude looks about as corrupt as the day is long.

    www.GoAnon.tk

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    It's winter in the northern hemisphere!

  • wareagle||

    the plain fact is that so-cons are the opposite side of the coin from liberals - they are just as willing to use the coercive power of govt to enact their value desires. The only difference is the desires themselves.

    The Repubs' problem is that very few people actually represent the republican wing of the party, the one that genuinely believes in limited govt, in the Constitution, and in individual liberty. What seems to escape notice is how those few are criticized just as harshly by the GOP as they are by the Dems.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Meh, most socons, at this point, just want to be left alone.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I think there's always been two camps of socons. A good many are simply worried that secular cosmopolitans are going to impose their ethos on them. Honestly, I think libertarians could address this audience and find either converts or at least room for common ground. The other, probably smaller, group is fundamentally committed to imposing their worldview on everyone else. These guys differ from progressives only based on what line of BS they're out to cram down everyone's throats.

  • anon||

    Meh, most socons, at this point, just want to be left alone.

    If that were true, they wouldn't have nominated Romney.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Meh, most socons, at this point, just want to be left alone.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    "they are just as willing to use the coercive power of govt to enact their value desires."

    I disagree. While conservatives are definitely not libertarians, their use of government is fundamentally less than liberals. Conservatives believe that there are a handful of fundamental institutions and values that are absolutely necessary and command government attention even in a free society. These things are both practically and philosophically limited and the conservative movement is still consolidating on smaller ground. Most of these revolve around the family. We've seen over the past few decades that many social problems are tied to the breakdown of the family. Support of the traditional family is meant to be a stopgap that keeps us from needing more welfare, more prisons, etc. While this support is above and beyond libertarian non-aggression principle, it is hardly comparable to the progressives desire to control everything.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    More so than is the family fundamental, the real question is, is government fundamental to the family?

  • John||

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....E120140207

    Leaked "fuck the EU" call made on unencrypted cell phones. Isn't it time we just admitted that Ivy League liberals are poorly educated, lack self discipline, common sense, and are generally just not very bright or competent to do much of anything beyond smell each others' farts?

    Seriously, how hard is it to realize your unencrypted phone in the Ukraine is probably tapped and to act accordingly?

  • Irish||

    Especially when the government that you work for is definitely tapping the phones of other country's ambassadors.

    "Sure we're tapping their phones, but I'm sure they'd never do the same!"

  • John||

    And governments have been tapping foreign diplomats' phones since phones were invented. If you are a diplomat, you need to assume that everything you say on open source communication is being heard by the local government. These people are so mind numbingly incompetent they don't realize that.

  • Mokers||

    I would say there are some decent ivy league liberals out there, but the ones who go into public policy all seem to be exactly as you describe.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Nuland was right in the middle of the Benghazi "talking points" scandal. She was also a spokesperson for many years, and that is what made her qualified to become an assistant secretary of state who is going to end the hostilities in the Ukraine?

  • John||

    Sunstein's wife was the Washington DC manager of Dukakus' campaign. Somehow that made her an expert on foreign affairs. She is not the US Ambassador to the UN despite having no experience in anything beyond being a reliable political hack appointed to various high positions, all of which she fucked up.

    Fuck up and move up is the world these people live in.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    To be fair, ambassadorships and other obscure positions were considered places to stash and reward campaign supporters long before Obama was around. Look at Mike Brown and FEMA.

  • GILMORE||

    "Tulpa (LAOL-VA)|2.9.14 @ 1:54PM|#

    To be fair, ambassadorships and other obscure positions...

    Ambassadorships, yes = they tend to go to rich benefactors who have at least SOME excuse for having regional relevance. Speaking the language is a plus. The real peaches tend to go to bullshit locations that have nice social scenes and beaches...

    ...whereas, ambassadors to BRIC nations, or security partners tend to be former State Dept. people or people with at least some diplomatic experience. Not always.

    (I note: the current ambassador to France? Former CEO of the Jim Henson Company (Muppets, yes), and former head of DNC fundraising in *California*. A man who knows what *tough work* is really about.)

    "Asst. Secretary of State", however, is not particularly *obscure*, nor is it typically a job handed out to political party hacks. They tend to be academics / think-tankers who will make the sitting Secretary *Look Smart*. One hopes.

  • GILMORE||

    "She is not the US Ambassador to the UN despite ..."

    No, she's not. That's Samantha Powers. As I've noted before.

    The chick you mention is Assistant Secretary of State. Not that your point is much different. Just sayin.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And young people, again not surprisingly, don’t want to hang with bigots

    Young liberals are bigots, and no sensible person would pretend otherwise. They have no compunction about attacking the people who disagree with them.

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, bingo. Its not that young people don't want to hang with bigots, its (generalization alert!) that they don't want to hang with the wrong bigots.

    Outside of fringe radical groups, you would be hard-pressed to find more no-foolin' bigots than populate various dank and fetid corners of the proggy coalition. And the young'uns, having been "educated" by these bigots, don't recognize the particular flavor of bigotry constantly displayed by progs.

    The very people running programs that explicitly discriminate on the basis of race and gender have done a "hey, sqirrel!" with gay rights and have successfully redefined bigotry as "not wanting to treat gays as a specially protected class", rather than "wanting to treat people primarily according to skin color or gender".

  • Irish||

    Yeah, bingo. Its not that young people don't want to hang with bigots, its (generalization alert!) that they don't want to hang with the wrong bigots.

    I don't think most young people realize how bigoted the left is or their intolerance for any outside views. The issue is that tons of people under 30 get all their news from John Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

    They're just never even shown evidence that contradicts their worldview because progressives are very capable of living in an echo chamber their entire lives.

    A conservative or a libertarian must understand liberal arguments simply because liberal arguments are so prevalent on T.V. and in the news. If you don't actively search out conservative and libertarian arguments, you might never see them.

    This is also why liberals tend to have a terrible understanding of any view outside of doctrinaire progressivism and spend most of their time knocking down strawmen.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    By far the most self-righteous and bigoted person I know is an acquaintance from high school who is openly gay and trying to make a career as a tolerance teacher/community outreach liaison with a gay rights group.

    If you aren't 100% LGBTQAA you are a bigot and a hater.

  • John||

    You pretty much just described GLADD. Fortunately, I know at least a few gays who hate GLADD with a passion.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It's not an aversion to bigotry, it is simply a cultural affinity for gay/black/woman/insert identity group here. It's cultural sponsors identify it as anti-bigotry in order to attach the respect of a significant and valid principle to what amounts to a cultural pose.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So basically they use the same reasoning as religious fundamentalists?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    As the more ignorant and repulsive of them, yeah. At least the fundies can claim they're doing God's will. These yahoos just want to fit in.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    The very people running programs that explicitly discriminate on the basis of race and gender have done a "hey, sqirrel!" with gay rights and have successfully redefined bigotry as "not wanting to treat gays as a specially protected class", rather than "wanting to treat people primarily according to skin color or gender".


    What I find remarkable is the idea that opposing same-sex "marriage" is bigoted and immoral.

    There are no published writings dating from the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, or the American Civil War that argues that refusing to recognize same-sex couples as married is immoral.

    By extremely sharp contrast, anti-slavery literature dates back to at least colonial times, and maybe even earlier .

    No one has ever come up with an answer is to why no one back then even thought of the idea.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There's a difference between prejudice against someone for something they can't change (race, gender, sexorient) and antipathy against people because of their opinions. I mean, Reason and most commenters here (including me) attack people who hold contrary opinions too. So do I, it's fun, even though logically I shouldn't.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Define sexual orientation.

  • ||

    True, but many progressives take it to the point of bigotry.

    For example, being unable to even engage in a reasoned debate about Keynian economics, because KOCH BROTHERS or something.

    Automatically assuming that if someone is against the birth control mandate they must be a Christian conservative who hates gays and woman.

    If you don't eat organic, local and support GMO food labeling, you are a closet Republican who is attempting to subvert the progressive hive-mind.

    Not expressing your eternal hatred for corporations five times a day means your moral purity is in question, and you just might be a Republican!

  • Gene||

    Finally

    The LPGA need's more exciting young American stars or the sport is dead.

  • R C Dean||

    Her resemblance to her uncle is uncanny. Most brothers and sisters don't look that much alike.

  • Killaz||

    Awesome. She's a local celebrity for us due to attending college at Wake Forest and being sighted at a lot of events.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Social conservatives who intend to make a serious issue out of it should realize that the fallout from their views could adversely affect all of us in a catastrophic way."

    It's been this way for a long time.

    Tip O'Neal had it completely backwards. All politics is national.

    Swing voters in California vote for Democrats because some idiot in Missouri talks about "legitimate rape", and every election cycle, there's a never ending supply of social conservatives saying stupid shit like that.

    It's true--what Obama says every day about how the economy works is dumber than creationism; unfortunately, his views on the economy are ignored by swing voters in the face of the socially conservative idiot statement of the week.

    It becomes a qualitative choice in swing voters' minds between keeping the economic policies we have now--or going with some socially conservative crackpot. I wish the South would go back to the Democratic Party, where they belong.

    If you think voting on other people's rights is what elections are for, then you should have been a Democrat--since the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 right. That's been the defining characteristic of Democrats since--and they still think our rights are defined in whatever terms the voters and their politicians want. The Democrats may want different things than social conservatives (like gay marriage), but if the social conservatives were in the Democratic Party's constituency, that would surely change.

  • R C Dean||

    every election cycle, there's a never ending supply of social conservatives saying stupid shit like that.

    Of course, every election cycle, there's a never ending supply of proggies saying stupid shit also.

    Mysteriously, stupid proggy shit doesn't get pounded 24/7 by the DemOp media, so it doesn't nationalize and taint Dem candidates.

  • Ken Shultz||

    But there's a reason for that!

    Like I said, what Obama says about how the economy works--every. day. of. the. week--is dumber than Lou Ferrigno.

    Swing voters are in such a way that they find economic stupidity much more palatable than socially conservative stupidity.

    You can only sell what the market wants. I don't build what I want. I build to what the market wants. The market tells you what to make. You make what people are buying.

    The state of the American swing voter is such that they find economic stupidity less abhorrent than socially conservative stupidity. It's been that way for a long time now, and that's the market we're given.

    Now we have to build to that--and deliver.

  • Jon Lester||

    I was about to say something in defense of Lou Ferrigno, but I did a quick search, and sure enough, his opinion on Edward Snowden would seem to support your assertion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The point is that Lou Ferrigno is deaf and--for many years--couldn't talk (dumb).

    The reason Schwarzenegger got all those roles instead of Ferrigno is because Schwarzenegger (believe it or not) could speak more clearly than Ferrigno.

    The Incredible Hulk was a godsend to Ferrigno--since he didn't have to talk. He'd just look into the camera and go, "GGGGGGggrrrrrrr!"

    The fact that he can talk reasonably well now is a testament to his amazing dedication and hard work.

  • Jon Lester||

    Sure, and I remember when he was profiled on "PM Magazine" back in the day.

    I don't watch FNC so I don't know how often they call him up to ask what he thinks about any given issue.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Stop calling me Hulk."

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't have to watch FNC to know that he's smarter than Obama on economic issues, or, i.e., that Obama is dumber than Lou Ferrigno!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The state of the American swing voter is such that they find economic stupidity less abhorrent than socially conservative stupidity. It's been that way for a long time now, and that's the market we're given.


    Swing voters swung for Mitt Romney in 2012.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Others have pointed out that a lot of those "swing voters" were people who have been driven out of the Republican Party by Bush and the social conservatives. It's no wonder they broke for the Republican.

    It's also important to note that Mitt Romney lost the election with those particular swing voters votes. It's not just that you need swing voters to win--you need swing voters in the rights states for the presidency.

    Whatever states Romeny needed to win but didn't? Those are the swing states we need. And they're the ones that voting against Republicans because of the social conservatives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Swing voters in California vote for Democrats because some idiot in Missouri talks about "legitimate rape", and every election cycle, there's a never ending supply of social conservatives saying stupid shit like that.

    Which demonstrates the absolute idiocy of CA swing voters that are more worried about some Jesus rides a T-Rex fundie in MI than they are about the democraps looting their tax dollars in their own town and state.

    You're statement illustrates that the culture war is leftwing agit-prop. A hey squirrel deflection to cover their corruption.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    Swing voters in California vote for Democrats because some idiot in Missouri talks about "legitimate rape", and every election cycle, there's a never ending supply of social conservatives saying stupid shit like that.

    Which demonstrates the absolute idiocy of CA swing voters that are more worried about some Jesus rides a T-Rex fundie in MI than they are about the democraps looting their tax dollars in their own town and state.

    You're statement illustrates that the culture war is leftwing agit-prop. A hey squirrel deflection to cover their corruption.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Which demonstrates the absolute idiocy of CA swing voters that are more worried about some Jesus rides a T-Rex fundie in MI than they are about the democraps looting their tax dollars in their own town and state."

    Again, you need to look at this as more of a market analysis.

    The market likes Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber.

    I can talk about how lame their music is, but if you're trying to sell more music than the other guy--in a duopolistic market--you need to sell to the market what the market wants, even if they're stupid.

    What we want to sell them is capitalism. If they would rather forgo capitalism and listen to the the farts of barnyard animals--so long as capitalism is associated with social conservatism--then we need to get rid of the social conservatism if we're gonna sell capitalism.

    It's as simple as that.

    Talking about the way the market should be and what they should like is pointless. We CAN sell capitalism to the market the way it is, and if we refuse to deal with the market the way it is, then it isn't the market's fault if they don't respond. It's our fault for living and working in a fantasy world made of the way the voters should be.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Then we're doomed because in a country of 300+million people there is always going to be some dumbass saying stupid shit. And even when there isn't the media will just manufacture it.

    As I pointed out below, the only effective strategy is to attack. The republicans used to know this, with Atwater being supreme tactician. But for whatever reason they've fallen into a defensive crouch that just invites more lies and abuse from the socialists.

    A large part of the problem is the leftwing domination of the mainstream media. People like Romney or Whitman could do a lot more to advance freedom by buying mainstream media outlets instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on vanity campaigns. (I know assumes they care about freedom, which they don't. I'm just point out that the right should spend more money influencing culture and less on quixotic political campaigns.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Then we're doomed because in a country of 300+million people there is always going to be some dumbass saying stupid shit."

    All you need is the Republican leadership to distance themselves from the stupid shit on a consistent basis.

    Instead of embracing it.

  • Irish||

    I must have missed Mitt Romney embracing Todd Akins rape comments.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I must have missed Mitt Romney embracing Todd Akins rape comments."

    Maybe Republican leadership isn't the right word--it's the people who control the platform, the donors, the RNC itself...

    Those "establishment Republicans" as people keep calling them. You know how you can't be a Republican unless you say you're pro-life, etc.?

    Todd Akins' comment was in response to a question about abortion. As a candidate, he has to look like he's hardline on abortion--maybe that's what's in his heart of hearts, too--but he also has to tow the abortion line and apparently felt like he couldn't back down an inch on the issue.

    ...to the point that he felt it necessary to deny that women becoming pregnant as a result of rape was something that might require an abortion. Now the entire party is getting smeared coast to coast for being so stupid on abortion that they would invent all kinds of weird, uneducated, stupid, pseudoscience biology to justify denying rape victims an abortion.

    Meanwhile:

    "President Obama‘s reelection team is making a concerted effort to tie Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who said, in a debate, that pregnancies resulting from rape are something that “God intended to happen.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/online.....paul-ryan/

  • Lyle||

    People are free to be socially conservative or religious. They vote. They cannot be distanced from.

    You can't just chain them up, gag them, and lock them in the basement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You can't just chain them up, gag them, and lock them in the basement."

    I'm not trying to lock up anybody.

    I'd like to see the leadership wrested from the current bunch--and the keys to the car go back to the kinds of people who were running things back in the days of Goldwater and Reagan.

    The social conservatives were invited over for dinner and way overstayed their welcome. People like Bush Jr.--ideologically--would have been Southern Democrats like Lyndon Johnson before the Reagan coalition. They need to go back where they belong.

    Goldwater was openly hostile to social conservatives. Reagan never even threw them a bone. How did they ever take over the leadership?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    People like Romney or Whitman could do a lot more to advance freedom by buying mainstream media outlets instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on vanity campaigns.

    They don't have enough money. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No, we are not.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If you're talking about buying LAT and WaPo type outlets, you're missing the point. There are already right-leaning newspapers. That's not where the action is. The action is in TV.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They don't have enough money. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars.

    Except that is has already started to happen, or did Jeff Bezos not just buy WaPo?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Ahem.

    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)|2.9.14 @ 12:40PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    If you're talking about buying LAT and WaPo type outlets, you're missing the point. There are already right-leaning newspapers. That's not where the action is. The action is in TV.
  • So very tired||

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/.....69130.html

    Al Jazeera’s coverage will soon be available in more than 40 million US households, up from 4.7 million prior to the deal.

    Terms were undisclosed, but analysts told the Reuters news agency the deal could be worth an estimated $500m.
    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)|2.9.14 @ 11:43AM|#

    They don't have enough money. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars.

    No, they clearly don't, as actual evidence demonstrates.

    This also ignores your bald assertion that "That's not where the action is. " as though the declarations of a proven liar are of any use in any discussion.

    Not only are you wrong, as my links prove, you're aliar, as your history proves, and your point is based on your stupid fucking liars opinion, which reading comprehension proves.

    How about you just shut the fuck up for a while and do something other than be wrong like you were with your stupid fucking claim that they would need "tens of billions" because you know dick about TV and are convinced your opinion about the value of newspapers and web sites mean fuck all to anyone?

    Thanks.

  • ||

    They don't want capitalism any more than they want social conservatism, and trying to bait and switch them is only going to work until the "switch" part. Or to borrow your analogy, Amon Amarth playing Beiber tunes is only going to satisfy the Beiber fans until they actually start playing their own songs - you can't sell Swedish death metal to Justin Beieber fans.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Economic growth is more popular than using the government to discriminate against gay people.

    Seriously.

    No, not everyone is suddenly going to become ultracapitalist the moment the Republicans drop their socially conservative hostility towards gay people, but capitalists will keep losing battles so long as they keep trying to fight with that ball and chain tied around their necks.

    There's no guarantee you're going to get hired in any given job interview, but before anyone hires you, you will have to stop picking your nose during the interview.

  • ||

    Economic growth is more popular than using the government to discriminate against gay people.

    Ask some of the people you think you're impressing to define "economic growth". Start talking to them about your proposals to grow the economy. Bring a poncho so you don't have to spend too long in the shower after they get done pelting you with their own feces.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Paying more in taxes isn't popular with swing voters.

    Let me put it this way: the Democrats (and their cronies in the media and on the comment boards) don't focus on social issues because economic issues are their strong suit with swing voters.

    Swing voters are people who don't buy into the Democrats economic arguments, right? Otherwise they'd be loyal Democrats. They don't like Republicans on social issues either. Isn't that what most swing voters are? People who don't like the Democrats on the economy but don't like the Republicans on social issues?

  • ||

    Paying more in taxes isn't popular with swing voters.

    It is as long as somebody else is paying, or at least if everybody else is getting screwed as bad as they are. As the saying goes, "When a politician tells you he wants to raise everyone else's taxes, he isn't talking to you". Swing voters haven't figured that out yet. If it were as simple as them being socially liberal and fiscally conservative they'd be libertarians.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We don't need all the Democrats to become Republicans to throw a monkey wrench in the Democrats' economic program.

    We just need a majority of the swing voters, who--by definition--are people who can't bring themselves to be called "Democrats".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Romney won a majority of independents in 2012. So, no, that's not enough.

  • Bam!||

    Romney only won a majority of independents in 2012 because Bush pushed so many Republicans over to the independent category.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    If they would rather forgo capitalism and listen to the the farts of barnyard animals--so long as capitalism is associated with social conservatism--then we need to get rid of the social conservatism if we're gonna sell capitalism.

    Except, it's not clear to me that capitalism ever can dump social conservatism. A capitalist society is going to pretty quickly converge on a pretty damned socially conservative equilibrium. When Uncle Sugar isn't there to kiss all their boo-boos better, people are going to quickly realize that their actions have consequences. And a lot of socially conservative dictates are things that are generally good advice in general if you want to be successful - study hard, work hard, don't party like there's no tomorrow, be a connected member of your community, be charitable with your time and money, don't screw anything that comes down the pike. Trying to sell libertarianism or capitalism without acknowledging this is just setting the ground to have its enemies point it out on their terms.

  • SusanM||

    And a lot of socially conservative dictates are things that are generally good advice in general if you want to be successful - study hard, work hard...

    Do you need to be a racist, homophobic Jeebus freak to exhibit those values? .

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No. And are you making a substantive claim about socons, or are you just repeating dimestore stereotypes about them?

  • SusanM||

    ...are you making a substantive claim about socons, or are you just repeating dimestore stereotypes about them?

    Is there any difference anymore?

    You brought it up though. As if to imply that paranoid bigotry and capitalism are inextricably linked. Do you subscribe to the dimestore caricatures of gays being all lazy dilettantes who hate Jesus and apple pie and must be shut out of being "connected members of the community", otherwise it would destroy the collective good - er moral fabric of this once-great nation?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Sure, Susan, everybody who is socially conservative just hates gay people and thinks they're a threat to all that is good and holy. You got it absolutely right. Porky's was a documentary about the religious right and guys like EvH hate all the gay posters on H&R. How could I have missed it? Surely, every trite, cliched depiction put out by Hollywood should be taken as gospel because people aren't any more complex than whatever a hipster screenwriter can cook up in their imagination.

    Christ Almighty, SusanM, do you even realize that you've become as much of a bigot as the straw man you've created in your imagination?

  • ||

    "It's true--what Obama says every day about how the economy works is dumber than creationism.."

    I am stealing that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You can't.

    I'm giving it away for free!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Swing voters in California vote for Democrats because some idiot in Missouri talks about "legitimate rape",..."

    Which was less an idiotic statement than one that was lifted out context (that comment had to do making distinction between rape by assault and cases of impaired consent), like Romney's comment about liking to fire people, and Peter Schiff's interview about the minimum wage on the Daily Show. You cannot escape "idiotic" comments because the Left is intellectually dishonest in their debating techniques abetted by their editorial control of most major media. The only way to avoid such editorial tricks is an impossible level of perfection in expressing concepts or ceding major portions of the debate to the progs by not talking about them at all.

  • John||

    It really comes down to gays. The SOCONS have largely won the abortion fight. And gays are like 2% of the population. Moreover, if the SOCONS would stop caring so much about gays, the liberals would lose interest in the issue very quickly. It is not like liberals give a fuck about gays and would turn on them in a heartbeat if promoting the ideology demanded it.

    The longer term problem is that even if the SOCONS and the GOP completely folded on gays, the liberals would just find something else to wage the culture war over. Reason reason never seems to understand or admit how cultural aggressive liberals are. Reason thinks that the liberals' culture war over gays is about gays. No, for liberals it is about power and forcing their political enemies and the rest of society into further submission. If it wasn't gays it would be something else. When gay rights is no longer an issue, they will move onto something else and something after that until there is not a single aspect of society or thought that isn't controlled and dominated by liberals.

    Even if you think gay marriage and such is the right thing to do, you are kidding yourself if you think that is going to satisfy liberals or end the culture war. The culture war is what they do.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Good points, except this part:

    "The SOCONS have largely won the abortion fight."

    Seriously? They've restored the protections the unborn used to have? I had thought legal abortion was still the norm, and the battles being fought are over attempts to curb the more extreme manifestations of abortion (lack of parental notification, late-term abortions, clinics dangerous to women).

  • John||

    They have won it in the sense that a large majority of people object to late term abortions and younger people are much more anti-abortion than boomers. They haven't been able to translate that into policy, but they will. I really think the radical "pro choice" position is doomed. It is just a matter of time.

  • ||

    a large majority of people object to late term abortions and younger people are much more anti-abortion than boomers.

    Cite? Not saying it's not true, I just haven't really seen any polls to that effect.

  • ||

    Even if true, SoCons have hardly "won" on the issue, since their preferred policy has not come to fruition, and never will.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Even if true, SoCons have hardly "won" on the issue, since their preferred policy has not come to fruition, and never will.

    Never is a long time.

    And you know how I know that the SoCons have won the abortion debate?

    Because there's no support for abortion in the popular, non political media, ie movies, tv, music etc.

    Which was not the case 30-40 years ago. Back then abortion was shown as legitimate and even good option. Now, entertainment that deals with unwanted pregnancies celebrates keeping the child, even as a single parent.

    The SoCons would actually push that point, if they weren't a bunch of overly moralistic fucking retards.

  • ||

    Because there's no support for abortion in the popular, non political media, ie movies, tv, music etc.

    Because it's a dormant issue that the SoCons lost 40 years ago with Roe v Wade. Until they get a constitutional amendment passed, that's not going to change. Lots of luck with that.

    In a country that turned Wendy Davis into a folk hero and got her nominated for an office she'll never win on the basis of this one issue, I'm perfectly comfortable with a working definition of "never" that includes the 50 or so years the rest of my life will probably last.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nope, you're just wrong and can't admit it.

    Remember fast times and ridgemont high in the early 80s? The scene where a hs teacher takes a student to get an abortion.

    A scene like that is unimaginable today.

    And there were a number of sitcoms in the 70s where a middle aged character got pregnant and solved the problem with an abortion. Again, there's been nothing like that narrative for a very long time.

    The fact is that young people are much more likely to be pro-life than older people. The socons have basically won that issue in the culture and it's only inertia that is preventing legal restrictions from being enacted. And that inertia is slowly giving way as the older generation die off.

  • ||

    A scene like that is unimaginable today.

    Just not for the reason you think. You're as delusional as Gillespie thinking that young people supporting pot legalization makes them hardcore libertarians. The reason you don't see those storylines anymore is because they lost all their ability to shock or amuse because nobody gives a shit about abortion anymore. You lost. Abortion is legal, and more accessible than ever. But if it makes you feel better to declare victory because the rest of society lost interest in the issue a generation ago, run with that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But if it makes you feel better to declare victory because the rest of society lost interest in the issue a generation ago, run with that.

    Yep that's why both parties keep pushing the issue, because no one cares either way.

  • John||

    We will see. I think as science gets ore and more advance abortion will become more and more obviously barbaric. Give a few decades and people will wonder how people ever thought this way.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cite? Not saying it's not true, I just haven't really seen any polls to that effect.

    That's cuz it's BS. Anti-choicers will squint their eyeballs till they break looking for some sort of hope in the future. And PM is right. The issue isn't in popular culture because it's pretty much dead and settled.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's some serious goalpost moving.

  • John||

    Yes because there can never be multiple senses of a word. Go fuck yourself Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In a sense, the Broncos won the Super Bowl. They weren't shut out, after all.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The longer term problem is that even if the SOCONS and the GOP completely folded on gays, the liberals would just find something else to wage the culture war over."

    What would they use, John?

    The Drug War?

    Would they go after our gun rights?

    Those are losing issues. They're nowhere near as attractive a wedge issue as gay marriage--not on the side the Democrats would be on.

    And from a libertarian perspective, I wish the Democrats would define themselves explicitly in those terms. Then people would start voting on issues that matter--rather than what somebody does with their willie at night.

  • R C Dean||

    the liberals would just find something else to wage the culture war over

    I agree with this. Not sure exactly what the next front would be, but "Doin' right ain't got no end." They'd come up with something. Fuck me, but even when their culture war bullshit talking points are thoroughly debunked (like the "wimmenz only make 70% of what men make"), they just keep on spouting them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We can go through a list of the likely candidates--and none of them are as attractive as gay marriage.

    They want to go for gun control? Gun control remains unpopular nationally--even in the wake of school shootings.

    They want to go for intelligent design in public schools? Has teaching creationism in public schools ever been less popular? The vote school board members who talk about intelligent design out in North Carolina?

    Prayer in public schools just doesn't resonate like it used to, either. That's just not something that effects most people anymore.

    They're got abortion to some extent! ...not that abortion is an especially popular issue to champion with Latino voters.

    Maybe the Democrats would like to become the champions of the Drug War? As a libertarian, I'd love to see that! Let's make the Drug War a point of contention nationally!

    All of those wedge issues are inferior.

  • R C Dean||

    I think your view of the scope of the culture war is too narrow.

    On "social" issues, the war extends not only to whether something should be allowed, but also to whether other people should be forced to pay for it or be forced to associate with or do business with other people. That's where you get into the never-ending, "doin' right ain't got no end" magic of the proggy culture war.

    I also think you mistakenly assume that SoCons are the aggressors in the culture war, when they have been constantly on the defensive. Don't look (only) for issues that you imagine SoCons would like to put on the statute books; look for issues that the proggies want to put the State in control of, and you will know where the culture war will be fought next.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    They already went after sociocons reluctance to fund abortions, fund contraception, mandate private recognition of SSM, mandate HPV vaccines, etc. These are all issues where sociocons and libertarians agree.

    Are you proposing they surrender on those issues too?

  • ||

    These are all issues where sociocons and libertarians agree.

    You might want to check with Ron Bailey on that. He never met a involuntary vaccine he didn't love - or that wasn't as libertarian as heroin vending machines, in his mind.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Bailey has said he's not a libertarian on more than one occasion. He's here for his transhumanist bent.

    I would say that I don't oppose all forced vaccinations... your right to serve as a petri dish for highly contagious, severely dangerous diseases ends when we share the same atmosphere. So MMR and polio vaccines I'm OK with forcing. Tetanus shots and HPV and chicken pox, not so much.

  • Cytotoxic||

    severely dangerous diseases ends when we share the same atmosphere.

    This is the same bullshit that anti-GMO twats trot out.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Wait, GMO crops spread diseases? I know the luddites make claims of this (they make whatever claim they can think of), but they have no proof.

    Whereas there's a large body of evidence showing that measles spreads easily and causes severe damage.

  • John||

    What would they use, John?

    Expanding the CRA to gays and use it to muzzel speech and expression of religion just like they are using the contraception mandate to get churches out of the charity business and restrict them to self contained organization. The next step after gay marriage is to make it illegal for any public accommodation to not accept gays. After that, creating a "hostile environment" will become the same as exclusion and it will be effectively illegal to publicly object to homosexuality or by extension espouse any form of non-state approved religion. There will be a state approved Christianity and Judism and Islam and Mormonism that accepts homosexuality. All other forms will be illegal anywhere outside of your home.

    Then they will move on to polygamy, transsexuals doing the same thing. They will certainly try to criminalize gun ownership and make anyone who distrusts the government into a suspected terrorists.

    Will they be successful? I don't know. But even 20 years ago, no one would have thought in a million years we would have gay marriage much less include gays under the CRA. I wouldn't under estimate them. They are fanatics, patient and incredibly persistent. They also own the education system and 90% of the popular culture. So I wouldn't say it is impossible. They track record in the culture war is pretty damned impressive.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The only thing that gives me hope is that, post-Scott Walker, the public sector union money machine is starting to break down. I mean the system where taxpayer money is funnelled through the public sector unions, which use it to push radical left wing agendas and campaign for more spending (and thus more money for the unions).

  • ||

    The new system we have already seen.
    Remember Solyndra?

    Justs give massive amounts of tax payer money to green jobs and those companies will give back to Democrat election funds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But even 20 years ago, no one would have thought in a million years we would have gay marriage much less include gays under the CRA."

    To what extent is socially conservative hostility to gay rights responsible for that change?

    If social conservatives hadn't been so vocal in their opposition, would it have been so much of an issue? Would it have been as successful?

  • John||

    So if no one had objected, it would have failed? That is absurd. If SOCONS hadn't said anything, it would have been law a lot sooner.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not really saying that it would have failed if no one opposed it; but I don't think it would have been so much of an issue if the social conservatives in the Republican Party hadn't made it such a big issue.

    You go around amending state constitutions to prohibit something that isn't even legal yet--just to make a wedge issue that now your opponents are using against you--and how much good has that done? What good is it doing Republicans? What good is it doing social conservatives?

    It wasn't even good for the opponents of gay marriage. Nothing made gay marriage more popular than social conservatives running around making it illegal.

  • John||

    You go around amending state constitutions to prohibit something that isn't even legal yet-

    You do when courts are making it legal by judicial fiat. Jesus Ken, you fucking retarded? The liberals were going to make gar marriage universal by court decree. It was only then that states started changing constitutions. It was the only way to reign in their courts.

    I am sorry Ken but the SOCONS sometimes do act defensively. You act like if they would just not say anything, the liberals would go away. Ah no. The liberals would make them criminals and lock them up if they could. That is the end game here, the criminalization of speech and beliefs contrary to liberal dogma.

    You are as bad as Reason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The liberals were going to make gar marriage universal by court decree."

    On a state by state basis, perhaps.

    But isn't that going to happen anyway?

    And I wasn't really talking about the consequences of making an issue out of gay marriage on the legality of gay marriage itself.

    I was talking about the consequences of the social conservatives making a big deal out of gay marriage--on Republican electability, generally, and on the Republicans' ability to fight against Obama and the Democrats' economic policies.

    One of the things I want to get across to social conservatives is that their opposition to gay marriage has very little impact in the real world--other than hamstringing the Republicans. Gay people are going to keep fucking and sucking each other regardless of whether they can legally get married!

    ...and what do I care?!

    The ability of Obama's and the Democrats' opposition--to fight spending, taxes, ObamaCare, unions, etc., however, that I care a lot about! It has real impacts on me in the real world. And your stupid obsession with something that doesn't really matter anyway is only hurting our ability to resist the Democrats on all those important issues.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I was talking about the consequences of the social conservatives making a big deal out of gay marriage--on Republican electability, generally, and on the Republicans' ability to fight against Obama and the Democrats' economic policies.

    One of the things I want to get across to social conservatives is that their opposition to gay marriage has very little impact in the real world--other than hamstringing the Republicans. Gay people are going to keep fucking and sucking each other regardless of whether they can legally get married!


    These bans passed by a margin of 10 points on average.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "These bans passed by a margin of 10 points on average."

    So what?!

    Prop 187 passed in California, too. ...and the Republicans still haven't lived it down 20 years later!

    Proposition 8 passed in California effectively banning gay marriage, too! So what?! They're gonna keep clobbering the Republicans with it--even though a huge chunk of black and Latino voters voted for it!

    The Republicans need to stop hanging themselves already! It's pointless. They're shooting themselves in the foot--for no reason. Absolutely no one who wouldn't vote for the Republicans anyway is voting for them because the social conservatives are against gay marriage.

    ...but a lot of people who might vote for the Republicans on economic and other issues won't vote for them because they're seen as a bunch of silly bigots.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    ...but a lot of people who might vote for the Republicans on economic and other issues won't vote for them because they're seen as a bunch of silly bigots.


    Who are these people? Your argument assumes that such people exist in large enough numbers to make a difference.

    Proposition 8 passed in California effectively banning gay marriage, too! So what?! They're gonna keep clobbering the Republicans with it--even though a huge chunk of black and Latino voters voted for it!


    What will be the argument? Vote for Democrats because Republicans support a law passed by a majority of the people?

    The math does not add up.

  • Bam!||

    What would they use, John?

    In 2012, Democrats weren't bashing Republicans with gayness, they were bashing Republicans with a phony war on women.

  • Robert||

    What would they use, John?


    Issues we can't even imagine today. Remember fur? Almost overnight, the wearing of fur became a, what's the opposite of cause celebre? Nobody saw that coming.

    That's the point. They pick something hitherto uncontroversial out that has just a tenuous relationship to things they already believe, if even that, and suddenly there's a PC & a politically incorrect side.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The point is that the other issues are inferior from a strategic perspective. You don't think the fur issue is going to make swing voters skew for the Democrats, do you? Making the republicans look like a bunch of silly homophobes is the most effective weapon in their arsenal. Take it away from them already! Make them fight with their fists.

  • Robert||

    The other issues that you can think of now are inferior strategically now. My point is that there will be issues neither of us can think of now that will be blown into significant strategic ones.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Gay marriage is almost unique as an issue in terms of how little effect it has on people.

    I'm trying to think of any other issue that has a smaller impact--than letting people who are screwing each other anyway get married.

    That's why making fun of social conservatives for opposing it is such an effective strategy.

    It isn't that the Democrats are out there tricking people into thinking that social conservatives care about something they don't.

    The social conservatives are doing this to themselves--and everyone the Democrats can associate with them.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That's why making fun of social conservatives for opposing it is such an effective strategy.


    The average margin of victory for these bans on legal recognition were double-digits. apparently majorities in so many states agreed with the socons.

  • Robert||

    Many of the issues brought out here in Hit & Run have a smaller impact—stuff like cops breaking in, scaring everyone, shooting dogs & people, etc. happens to a minuscule fraction of the popul'n. Same with the keeping of exotic pets.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Many of the issues brought out here in Hit & Run have a smaller impact"

    Yes, and it would be silly for Republicans to practically define their movement in terms of those issues.

    ...especially when there are things like spending, taxes, and ObamaCare to talk about.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Those are losing issues. They're nowhere near as attractive a wedge issue as gay marriage--not on the side the Democrats would be on.


    Explain why DOMA was passed by lopsided majorities.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, the political reality has changed since then, hasn't it? Back in 1996, even the Democrats were on the other side of the fence.

    Seems like the more noise social conservatives made on the issue, the less popular opposition to gay marriage became. Isn't that right?

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Seems like the more noise social conservatives made on the issue, the less popular opposition to gay marriage became. Isn't that right?


    You make the mistake of assuming that growing tolerance of same-sex "marriage" is inevitably linked to opposition to opposition to same-sex "marriage".

    There is no doubt that SSM advocates made ground, mostly by diminishing moral opposition to legal recognition of same-sex "marriage". But it does not follow that people who support it as a matter of public policy would make it their single issue, that they would refuse to vote for a candidate that disagrees with them.

    You have no support for your claim that a huge chunk of the electorate has moral opposition to opposition to same-sex "marriage".

  • ||

    The SOCONS have largely won the abortion fight.

    U wot m8?

  • lap83||

    Liberal issues are always on the fringe of what normal society believes. You make it sound like the liberal stance occurred first and the socons reacted to it.

    When gay marriage is the norm, issues like this will be next on the agenda for liberals
    http://www.kansascity.com/2014.....ldren.html
    Liberals are about making fringe viewpoints appear normal in attempt to change society.

  • lap83||

    Btw, I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm just stating a fact about how liberals operate.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Moreover, if the SOCONS would stop caring so much about gays, the liberals would lose interest in the issue very quickly."

    Social conservatives care about marriage. They are reacting to the constant progressive attacks on marriage which currently is the front the left is attacking on.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Letting gays marry is not an attack on marriage.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The idea that differences in sex are irrelvent to marriage is an attack on marriage. The notion that marriage is about the satidfaction of the adults involved is. The rationalizations for SSM rely on a degenerate concept of the institutional purpose of marriage.

  • phandaal||

    I'm not sure what you think is the purpose of marriage, but I did some Googling for chuckles and here's a fun article about how the Western concept of marriage has changed over time:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com.....ge-history

    From this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Marriage.....014303667X

    If you're hoping for the purpose of marriage to stay the same now and forevermore, history says you're probably going to be disappointed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Producing offspring has always been at the center of marriage, and it's always been between a man and a woman. The difference between polygamy and monogamy is merely exclusivity of marriage, which doesn't change the fundamental nature that has existed.

    Jacob was married to Rachel, Jacob was married to Leah, but Rachel and Leah weren't married to each other.

  • Calidissident||

    Gay people can still have kids, even if not with each other (same as certain straight couples). Adoption, in vitro, and surrogacy do exist in this day and age.

  • Robert||

    Cooking made fire control necessary. The invention of microwave ovens doesn't mean fire control is no longer needed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The SOCONS have largely won the abortion fight.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sure John. Whatever you want to believe.

    Even if you think gay marriage and such is the right thing to do, you are kidding yourself if you think that is going to satisfy liberals or end the culture war. The culture war is what they do.

    They'll move on to something that won't be nearly as effective a cudgel. That's the point.

  • John||

    They'll move on to something that won't be nearly as effective a cudgel.

    Gay rights didn't used to be effective. They made it effective. That is how you win the culture war.

    But don't worry, the next point won't work. And I am sure they will shoot you last because they like you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Maybe gay rights worked because, like equal rights for blacks, it was the right thing to do? See 'false equivalence'.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Maybe gay rights worked because, like equal rights for blacks,"

    Yes, that is a false equivalence.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If it was such the right thing to do, why were there no calls for it back during the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, or the American Civil War.

  • anon||

    The SOCONS have largely won the abortion fight.

    That's just delusional.

  • ||

    The longer term problem is that even if the SOCONS and the GOP completely folded on gays, the liberals would just find something else to wage the culture war over.

    Sure but it is unlikely that new culture war issue would be as big of winner as gay marriage.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It is not like liberals give a fuck about gays and would turn on them in a heartbeat if promoting the ideology demanded it.

    My guess is that if socons ever dropped the issue, we'd find that one out very, very quickly. Gays' interests, at least materially, tend to favor a limited government that takes an aggressive stance against violent crime. Absent, "we hate teh gheyz", they'd be logically either Republican or Libertarian voters. And watch how quickly the left would go into catty little bitch mode to deal with THAT.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Social conservatives haven't made an issue out of contraceptive use since the 1960s, but the liberals dragged that issue out of retirement anyway in 2012. There's no escape.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Not sure if you're replying to me, but yeah. The left (I try to discourage the use of liberal in referring to them, as they're anything liberal) is more than happy to drag out any bullshit caricature that they think advances their cause. Logic, reason or any kind of adherence to objective reality has nothing to do with it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The single most encouraging reason for me to think Hillary won't get the Democrats' nomination is the obsession of the Meet the Press crowd with her INEVITABILITY.

    Holy fuck. Brooks just said Jerry Brown should run. No wonder the NYT keeps him around.

  • John||

    Everything those people say is a lie and the opposite of the truth. They are only repeating the "she is inevitable" mantra because she is anything but inevitable. If she really were inevitable, they would be saying she wasn't.

  • ||

    If Hillary Clinton isn't your next president I will heroically attempt to suck my own dick in town square.

  • John||

    You better start taking Yoga or something and work on your flexibility then.

  • ||

    I hope you're right, but I'm not counting on it. If not Clinton, the next president will definitely be a Democrat whose views will be indistinguishable, so the difference is pretty negligible.

  • Cytotoxic||

    the next president will definitely be a Democrat

    LOLWUT? Do you know how hard it is to elect the same party to the Prez that has already served 2 terms?

  • Robert||

    You sure that's not a stochastic fallacy?

  • GILMORE||

    Yeah, I'm with john here. Let us know the town, I'll set up the bleachers and work on the refreshment stands. Don't worry, you'll get a cut of the T-Shirt sales.

  • ||

    Don't worry, you'll get a cut of the T-Shirt sales.

    Alright, it's all set then. I'm actually just outside Las Vegas, but in the interest of publicity we better do it on the strip. My only concern is the competition we'll probably have to deal with...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Reason road trip to Sin City! I'm in!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    If Hillary Clinton isn't your next president I will heroically attempt to suck my own dick in town square.

    Wow! Bookmarking that bitch!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Roger L. Simon penned an interesting piece arguing that social conservatives are helping liberals out by pushing culture-war themes in an America that has long moved on to more basic economic issues of governance.

    War on womenz

    The one percenters

    KKKorpurashuns aren't people.

    Secret foreign money stealing our democracy.

    Welfare over Work.

    Yep, those SoCons sure are pushing culture war bullshit.

  • John||

    See my post above. The culture war is what liberals do. They are the aggressors. They always will be because they are totalitarians. The point of pushing gay rights is to make certain view points unacceptable in public. It is not to help gays.

    Reason just can't imagine that liberals might not be their friends.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Isn't it interesting that a magazine that was so quick to jump all over Ron Paul for his association with racist groups is so quick to jump into bed with socialist groups, and doesn't seem to think that those associations should tarnish them at all?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Reason.com seems to think that Cultural Marxism will somehow lead to a libertarian society.

    I'm not sure whether they're just stupid or crypto socialists. Although their writers becoming hard core lefties after leaving implies the latter.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Cultural Marxism?

    Citation required.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's bullshit-ese for 'stuff I don't approve of'.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Who's jumping in bed with socialist groups?!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Weigel. Then there's the whole group of liberaltarians that are morphing ever more statist.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Again, VGZ confuses Reason with a conservative publication.

    Anything "not Republican" is statist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't even think of Weigel as a libertarian.

    I doubt Weigel ever thought of himself as a libertarian.

    Weren't we always a bunch of "rat-fuckers" to him?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anything "not Republican" is statist."

    Republicans are useful statists--to the extent that they oppose the current emperor.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Not about emperors or left/right.

    It's about right/wrong. Neither the Republican or the Democrats can claim either of those positions.

    Libertarians, can.

  • Calidissident||

    Both sides have committed aggressions in the culture war. Sodomy was illegal in some states just 10 years ago. Does that not count as aggression just because it was the historical status quo?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How in the fuck can people like E J Dionne continue to spout this egregious falsehood about the Obamacare "saving people money"?

  • John||

    Because that is the talking point "serious people" have been told to believe. You don't get to be E.J. Dionne by doing a lot of thinking for yourself there buddy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Simon is totally wrong here. There were WAAAAAAY more leftist attacks on Cuccinelli's alleged "war on women" than on his very public stance against SSM, and the same "war on women" trope was pulled out against the Republican in the special election for Loudoun Co's state senate delegate a few weeks ago.

    And basically the entire election season of 2012, the left was in full "war on women" mode and talked very little about SSM.

    It doesn't matter what the sociocons say or do, the left is going to paint them as bigots regardless. So Simon can go suck a fuck.

  • ||

    The MSM will always be able to goad some Republican, somewhere, to say something stupid, and then pretend it exemplifies the entire party. It doesn't even have to be stupid -- it just has to be anything that can be purposefully misconstrued. It is an obvious smokescreen. Trying to change this by one-upping the Democrats in political correctness is a fool's errand.

  • Irish||

    It doesn't even have to be stupid

    It doesn't even have to be true. Huckabee says, correctly, that the Democratic party is arguing that women are helpless sheep who would be wandering off cliffs were it not for the benevolent stewardship of the federal government.

    Rather than reporting that Huckabee was saying that this is what Democrats argue, there were a large number of reports claiming that Huckabee said women are helpless.

    It's irrelevant what the Republicans or libertarians do because the media will just make things up if they can't find any racism or sexism.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yep. More and more I see the MSM as an immovable obstacle in this fight. I don't see any way to overcome them. While fewer and fewer people are tuning in to the MSM daily for news, all they have to do is get someone's attention once to poison their minds (the intellectual laziness and political apathy of most Americans doesn't help).

    Barriers to entry in broadcast (or cable) media are enormous, so this isn't something that has a free market of ideas solution.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The way to overcome them is by wealthy righties buying media outlets and changing their editorial direction.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    As I said above, they would cost tens of billions of dollars. And of course there's plenty of wealthy lefties who would make offers once they got wind of it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Really?

    Didn't the WA Post just sell for $50 million? That's like a quarter of what meg whitman spent to get 40% of the vote 2010.

  • John||

    The Kochs were ready to buy the LA Times for a few million. None of these outlets make much money. The problem is that Progs have so much power they moved to prevent it from happening.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was talking about TV networks. Newspapers aren't even in the picture anymore.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Where do you think the TV networks get their arguments from?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Where do you think the TV networks get their arguments from?

    A lot of them are coached by the BO administration itself. If you're implying they need help from newspaper journalists, those should be in good supply after the Kochs buy the LAT and fire all the liberal journalists.

  • Bam!||

    Because in a free media market, when you take out a few weeds, no more will spring up.

    How much funding is Ezra Klein getting for his new media venture?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    More and more I see the MSM as an immovable obstacle in this fight. I don't see any way to overcome them.

    You discredit them and establish certified journalists who are held to an accountable standard. Same as the Bar or AMA.

    so this isn't something that has a free market of ideas solution.

    Nonsense. Only requires on outlet recognizing a desire for accurate news.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    "one", not "on"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You discredit them and establish certified journalists who are held to an accountable standard. Same as the Bar or AMA.

    How exactly do you do this? They're already discredited among people who are paying attention. How do you discredit them in the eyes of those who aren't?

    Nonsense. Only requires on outlet recognizing a desire for accurate news.

    And broadcast licenses, spectrum in major media markets, penetration into cable channel lineups... none of which come easy or cheap, to put it mildly. Even assuming people care enough about "accurate news".

    Things are a lot harder in the real world than in the world of ideas.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How exactly do you do this?

    Simple. Let's say I'm a major news outlet (call it XYZ) who decides to go after the niche market of responsible people who want accurate reporting.

    I go out to 10 respectable journalism schools and pay one person from each to sit on a board. The board's first job is to write a set of guidelines based on what they agree is responsible, moral journalism. Then they set up a certification process based upon these principles in the form of a test. Anyone may complain to the board about ANY board certified journalist not complying with their guidelines and the board can review and take action to revoke certification as appropriate. (The board eventually becomes its own entity by charging a fees for certification.)

    XYZ certifies it's journalists and complies with the guidelines. It advertises accurate unbiased reporting and actively criticizes its competitors for their bias and lack of credible reporters. Competitors will be forced to certify and clean up their acts.

    Problem solved, without a dime of government money or a single page of regulation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Let's say I'm a major news outlet (call it XYZ)

    Whoa whoa whoa. You're starting at 3rd base.

    How do you get a major news outlet? That's a pretty big step.

    go out to 10 respectable journalism schools and pay one person from each to sit on a board.

    Are you on crack? The journalism schools are infected by the same maladies as the MSM. And if you try to get some honest people from alternative sources, the other outlets will pillory you for setting up a biased panel.

    and so on... the disease goes so deep that you can't just approach it in a logical way.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Whoa whoa whoa. You're starting at 3rd base.

    Read much? I said:

    Let's say I'm a major news outlet (call it XYZ) who decides to go after the niche market of responsible people who want accurate reporting.

    Who said you need to start from scratch? All you need is for an existing outlet to want to get a leg up on their competition by capturing a niche market. This is a way to do that. (see SW Airlines)

    The journalism schools are infected by the same maladies as the MSM.

    Bullshit! I'm pretty fucking sure they still teach ethics at journalism school and I'm pretty sure none of those professors actually believe that lying is a legitimate means to pushing an agenda or fraud is a legitimate means of obtaining profit.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Not sure I buy this. People said as much about neoconservatism. Then Fox News came down the pike.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Fox News started up in 1996, which was a very different environment for cable channels than we have now.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    It's irrelevant what the Republicans or libertarians do because the media will just make things up if they can't find any racism or sexism.


    So how do we fight the media?

  • John||

    The media has the ability to set the narrative. Some GOP candidate no one has ever heard of says one thing and it is now considered to be what every Republican thinks.

    Meanwhile a Dem legislator in Mass is in jail for beating his girlfriend for not having sex with her. The NAACP is demanding he stay in office. But this is not news outside a few right wing news outlets.

    This is why I like it that Paul is going after Bill Clinton. The Dems think they can use the women card again. Okay, then explain why your favorite made her career defending her sex predator husband. The only way to fight this is stand up and stop cowering.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    Somewhere along the way in the last 20 years the republicans turned into huge pussies.

    Lee Atwater would have absolutely destroyed Obama in 2012, all dem congress critters this year and Hillary in 16.

    Instead of winning by fighting, the modern phants are obsessed with being liked by the socialist media.

  • John||

    I would go get Juanita Broaderick and have her quietly walk into a Hillary Speech and hold up a sign that says "Your Husband Raped Me" and not say a word and wait for them to come and throw her out. Don't make a scene but make them drag you out. Get the Youtube video of Hillary's secret service agents dragging out and arresting a woman who claimed she has been raped.

    The Dems would go ballistic. But the image would be so simple and powerful there would be nothing they could do about it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Get the Youtube video of Hillary's secret service agents dragging out and arresting a woman who claimed she has been raped.

    And who will broadcast it? Fox News? Preaching to the choir.

    Leaving aside the fact that there's absolutely no evidence for Broderick's claim being true. But I guess enemies of the right get the guilty until proven innocent standard.

  • John||

    I don't know that she is lying. There is no physical proof. But there is no proof she is lying either. God knows if she were accusing someone on the Right, the media would believe her. Hold her to her own standards.

    And you don't need the media to report it. That is what the internet is for. Moreover, they couldn't help themselves. The socialist media would take the bait and raise a stink in outrage. And that would ensure the video was widely seen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If Broderick's claim is taken seriously, then the Aqua Buddha chick that Rand Paul mistreated as a lad is also going to be front and center.

  • John||

    then the Aqua Buddha chick that Rand Paul mistreated as a lad is also going to be front and center.

    And you don't think she won't be anyway?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The only thing that matters is effectiveness; victory above all.

  • Jon Lester||

    Some will be quick to claim it's Swift-boating, the same as they're trying to do for Wendy Davis in Texas, despite that campaign's spectacular competence, and strong evidence that the candidate really isn't a likable person.

  • Jon Lester||

    *incompetence*

    Will our comments ever be editable?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    Somewhere along the way in the last 20 years the republicans turned into huge pussies.

    Lee Atwater would have absolutely destroyed Obama in 2012, all dem congress critters this year and Hillary in 16.

    Instead of winning by fighting, the modern phants are obsessed with being liked by the socialist media.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I like Rand Paul but he's being really tone deaf here. Hillary was the victim of that whole debacle -- and he's going to attack her for it?

    The "we can't have a philanderer as First Spouse" argument might have been great back in 1980, not so much in 2014. People don't care about sex scandals anymore. So he's just going to come off as attacking the victim.

  • John||

    Hillary was the victim of that whole debacle -- and he's going to attack her for it?

    She wasn't a victim. She was a co-conspirator. She and Bill both sent their media people out to destroy Monica Lewinsky even though they both knew she was telling the truth. Moreover, everyone knows that the only thing that saved his sorry ass was her not divorcing him.

    Even Hillary's biggest fans don't think she is a victim. No one thinks that. People either don't care and view her commitment to Bill as politically necessary or see it as the cynical move it was.

    Moreover, Hillary is totally going to run on the "get two for one and bring back Bill" platform. It is the only thing she can run on.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Even Hillary's biggest fans don't think she is a victim. No one thinks that. People either don't care and view her commitment to Bill as politically necessary or see it as the cynical move it was.

    You're falling prey to the "all humans are John" fallacy. We're talking about people who think Obama wants to give everyone free insurance and Fast And Furious is a Vin Diesel movie.

    The people who think like you do (and I do) are already on Paul's side.

  • John||

    And those people are going to vote anything but Dem anyway? All you are saying is "this won't sway hard core progs". Well no shit. But not everyone is a hardcore prog.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not just hardcore progs, but Dem sympathizers and left-leaning indies. Plus it helps with GOTV for the hardcore progs. 2012 showed that's all the Dems need.

    Romney won independents and still lost.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hillary was the victim?

    Seriously??

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Perhaps not in reality, but reality doesn't matter. What matters is how it can be spun.

    And spinning this in a way that makes Paul look like a warrior on women won't be hard.

  • John||

    No. He is just holding them to their own standards. That is how you beat these people. The way you don't beat them is doing what you do and cower afraid of saying anything.

    Get a fucking clue, they are going to portray him that way no matter what he says. So, that is not a reason to refuse to go on the offensive.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'm not saying don't go on the offensive. I'm saying don't choose a stupid way to go on the offensive that doesn't win anyone over who's not already on your side, and is going to make it easy for your opponent to GOTV their base and win over indies who already lean their way.

    Go on the offensive on Benghazi and her other flubs as SoS under Obama. God knows there's plenty of them.

  • John||

    It is not stupid. The only way to stop this is to hold them to their own stardards and taling about their hypocrisy. If you spend your time just denying their bullshit, the public will assume "well some of it must be true".

    You can't be Mitt Romney and not fight dirty. All of the arguments you are saying are true of the Swift Boaters and Willie Horton. Yet those worked didn't they? They worked because to beat liberals you have to think like them and fight like them and stop worrying about them saying you are a big meanie.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Holding them to their own standards? When has the left attacked a conservative politician because his wife's a slut? You're so obsessed with attacks that make you, a conservative, feel good that you're ignoring the fact that it's going to go over like a fart in church in the general population. This isn't playing dirty, this is playing stupid.

    As usual you blame Romney for the loss in 2012. How would you have "fought dirty" in his place? Obama is an insipid person who led an uneventful life before being "discovered" in 2004. He has no personal scandals to speak of. And Romney did attack him on his administration's scandals -- you saw how well that worked.

    There's a lot of condemnation for Romney's campaign but very little advice on what he should have done differently.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Get a fucking clue, they are going to portray him that way no matter what he says. So, that is not a reason to refuse to go on the offensive.

    Yep, you gotta go on the offensive. Even if both sides are just attack, attack attack, the net will be a variation of a Pox on both houses, which is actually an improvement over continually being on the defensive.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're not fighting on an even playing field thanks to MSM. To quote Faramir from ROTK, "Today we may make the Enemy pay ten times our loss at the passage and yet rue the exchange. For he can afford to lose a host better than we to lose a company."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Hillary was the victim of that whole debacle...

    BULLSHIT, Tulpa. She got a Senate seat out of the whole affair. Victim doesn't even enter the equation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're like the third person who's claimed that. Is that some new talking point? She would have gotten that seat even if Bill Clinton had Ward Cleaver levels of marital fidelity.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People under 40 (plus or minus a decade!) simply don't think about things the way Americans did a generation or two ago...

    If only they voted.

  • R C Dean||

    People under 40 (plus or minus a decade!) simply don't think about things the way Americans did a generation or two ago...

    Absolutely true. While we're generalizing, I would say the thing their thinking has most changed on is being responsible for yourself, the value of work, etc.

    We have a generation now that is increasingly living with, and off of, their parents, thinks nothing of handing their own kids off, at birth, to their parents to raise, and reflexively looks first to government for a solution or handout, rather than to themselves. The current wave of OCare propaganda about "wage slaves" and "job lock" is just more erosion of what used to a centerpiece of American self-image: the work ethic.

  • Idle Hands||

    Yea, speaking from merely anecdotal evidence the cavalry is not coming over the hill. The only thing we have to look forward to is that the current trajectory is unsustainable.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    My oldest niece is approaching 16, and at Christmas dinner I asked if she was excited about being able to drive soon. She said she doesn't want to learn to drive, she'd rather have mom and dad continue to ferry her around everywhere.

    I thought it was a joke and gave a bit of a chuckle. Later my sister informed me that it was not a joke, that's really the way she feels.

    In-cred-i-ble. Kids these days!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The problem is parents these days.

    Who wouldn't want a 24/7 free chauffeur.

  • ||

    Considering what the back seats of cars are for in high school, I couldn't imagine wanting mom and dad tagging along, but maybe that's a thing now too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'm sure my sister doesn't fall into this camp, but I have known parents who told their teenage kids it was OK to fool around with similarly-aged kids, but only at home with parental supervision (not in-the-same-room supervision, presumably, but with the parents being aware of what was going on and whether contraceptives, etc were being used).

    It sounds creepy as hell but it makes sense from a logical POV for their kids' safety.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's actually pretty common. Not with 14 year olds, but 17, 18, 19 - it's pretty much common practice here in SoCal.

    Which got me thinking of when I was that age and the prime motivation for moving out of my parents house was getting laid and fucked up (pot, alchohol). Now that kid's do that in their parent's homes, why should the want to move out?

    It also makes me think if the old not in my house shtick was more about getting the kids out of the house than enforcing old fashioned virtues.

  • ||

    It sounds creepy as hell but it makes sense from a logical POV for their kids' safety.

    Well, you have less to worry about when the young lad is too embarrassed to get it up, so it may be a great strategy from that perspective

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We're talking about teenage boys here. At least in my experience as one, there was very little that could interfere with an erection, certainly not embarrassment, as I found out too often while standing in goal staring down with a beet-red face during coed soccer games.

  • ||

    Where there's a will there's a way, but I'm not ashamed to admit I'd have had trouble launching with my mom and dad on the other side of the wall. Bonus points if they add commentary

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Good news is, once you get used to fucking with random people watching, you have all the qualifications necessary for a porn actor career.

  • Robert||

    Doesn't read as creepy to me. It's sex-positive, which is good.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't think that's it. My parents ferried me around to lots of places when I was younger too, but I was still bursting at the seams to get my DL when I turned 15. It meant freedom.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Though I do agree that parents these days tend to do an insane amount of driving their kids around compared to when I was a kid, largely due to the fear of the omnipresent child molesters who grab any kid that's not nailed down and/or under adult supervision.

  • Robert||

    Any child molesters around are probably being driven by their own parents, so it evens out.

  • GILMORE||

    " She said she doesn't want to learn to drive, she'd rather have mom and dad continue to ferry her around everywhere"

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

    plus, the second I got my learners permit, I think I went to buy my first nickel bags in the Bronx like a week later. CARS ARE GATEWAY DRUGS.

  • John||

    I have read that kids are not as interested in getting driver's licenses. We are DOOMED.

  • ||

    As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. People who are not interested in getting a driver's license are not interested in driving. And people who are not interested in driving make very shitty drivers. The more those types take the bus or have Mom chauffeur them around instead of getting a car and ignoring the road while playing with their phones, the better.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I never observed this amongst my friends.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're 15? That explains a lot.

  • ||

    If only they voted.

    If only they'd fucking STOP voting. Contra every single syllable that Gillespie has ever written on the subject, young people are as reliable a Democratic voting bloc as teacher's unions.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Propaganda works.

  • Cytotoxic||

    young people are as reliable a Democratic voting bloc as teacher's unions.

    Then why did Cuccinelli get more of them than his opponent?

  • Christophe||

    Dude, stop contradicting the narrative. You're no fun.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Is there proof?

    (Although it would not surprise me, as ObamaCare was exploding in the faces of Democrats; something Republicans unwittingly tried to prevent.)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Because a lot of them voted for Sarvis in disgust with Terry Mac. Cooch didn't get a majority of young people.

    In every other age group, Sarvis' votes came disproportionately from traditionally Republican groups.

  • Calidissident||

    "If only they'd fucking STOP voting."

    What? More Republicans would get elected? That would fix everything

  • ||

  • Robert||

    No points. It's not wearing the jacket.

  • Idle Hands||

    OT:Obamacare is working see, because these people never wanted to work in the first place. Oh, happy day.

  • ||

    Now they're not stuck in substandard jobs to continue receiving their substandard health insurance. FORWARD!

  • Irish||

    There are two aspects about this that make me laugh at the stupidity of the left.

    1. The people leaving these jobs are mostly low income. That means that income inequality is going to increase due to these policies. Apparently income inequality is okay when it's the Democrats' fault.

    2. This is going to decrease the amount of taxable wealth in the U.S. For years the left has been telling me that we can fix the debt problems by 'growing the economy' instead of cutting. Well, Obamacare is now actively hampering economic growth which makes our current spending even more unsustainable than it already was.

  • mikheil||

    If the government can't pay it's debt service to China, would Californians even notice or be disgruntled if California was given to the Chinese in payment... its pretty much a "red" state anyway...

  • ||

    Who says China would want it.

  • Christophe||

    They'd just evict the hippies. China won't say no to prime coastal and agricultural land.

  • Idle Hands||

    You literally can't parody this article it's like a snl skit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I never thought of it that way. Labor force participation going down means more people free to re-wild and gamboll through plain and forest.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Just imagine how wonderful the nation will be when the state creates disincentives for every job. No more having to carry on as a garbage collector, changing bedpans, or slaving away in the petroleum refinery.

    Paradise is just around the corner.

  • Mike M.||

    CBO's Obamacare Figures Just Don't Work for Dems

    The final line of the article:

    There’s a serious side to this, a seriously disquieting side: For years, it seemed that although Democrats profess to love jobs, they couldn’t stand employers. Now they’ve gone a step further: They don’t even favor work.

    Cannon is right. This is the first time I can ever recall the left seriously arguing that having fewer people working and more people on welfare is good for society. It's becoming a little scary.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's not scary. It's awesome.
    Rarely does the left let their mask slip. But in this case they've completely ripped it off. All in a lame attempt to win a meaningless news cycle for their dear leader - totally oblivious to the long term consequences for their ideology.

    I swear, sometimes I think Obama's a crypto-libertarian genius that is getting progressive's to self destruct.

  • Mike M.||

    Except for the fact that so many people are dependent on government now, that they idea that that's a good thing has now become a winning argument.

  • ||

    Agreed. Of course the Republicans have to completely blow it by idiotically insisting the the report says that employers will cut jobs.

    Leaving the Democrat to say, with little opposition, how awesome it is that people are "liberated" from the need to have jobs.

  • The Hyperbole||

    A seriously smaller government is a real possibility with electoral victories in 2014 and 2016.

    Hahahahaha..ha....ha.....damn

  • mikheil||

    I'm a newly saved Christian who thinks everything the religious right has been doing for decades was counterproductive. Want to push people away from Christianity in droves? Come off as an oppressor and bigot in national politics. It's what drove me from the faith in my teens. Truth without love is bankrupt. There's no way you can ban gay marriage and throw people in prison for using drugs in a loving way. It only pushes them further into the abyss. Christianity and the freedom it provides reaffirms my libertarianism. Christ said you can't force people into this with force... it's a voluntary choice. That's pure and simple NAP and voluntaryism.

  • ||

    Sevo, Epi and shreeek will be with you shortly...

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    That would no doubt be a good way to grow the base.

  • GILMORE||

    "There's no way you can ban gay marriage and throw people in prison for using drugs in a loving way.

    You probably need to visit the Ministry of Love

  • Michael Ejercito||

    There's no way you can ban gay marriage and throw people in prison for using drugs in a loving way.


    There was no ban on gay "marriage".

    People were free to have whatever ceremony they wanted and call it a marriager. It is just that they did not get the legal status of marriage.

    Try that in Saudi Arabia and you will quickly find out what a ban on gay "marriage" is.

  • anon||

    It is just that they did not get the legal status of marriage.

    Considering the comparison, you really missed the point there.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    ABC is doing an in depth terror porn segment focused on Sochi.

    "Nobody has been murdered or blown up so far, but we've got our fingers crossed!"

  • Mike M.||

    Last night at the bar someone asked me if I had watched the hockey game, and I replied that I was personally boycotting the Olympics. He asked me why, and I replied because they are being held in a fascist dictatorship, and I refuse to support fascist dictatorships.

    I couldn't believe the dumbfounded look he had on his face. It was simply more evidence of just how stupid we're becoming and how far we've fallen.

  • Rich||

    Maybe he was just trying to rectify your statement with the fact that the bar is in a fascist dictatorship. ;-)

  • GILMORE||

    "I was personally boycotting the Olympics...because they are being held in a fascist dictatorship"

    Oh, silly! Sochi is in *Russia*!

    Not California. Relax!

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    I understand what you are saying, but sometimes people just want to enjoy something independent of politics. One of the things that keeps down the COMPLETE acceptance by the masses of feel-good, platitudinous, collectivist, double-speak is that lefties tend to ruin everything that's fun by spewing politics all over it.

    I just want to watch CHINATOWN and then listen to Wagner without hearing about rape and anti-semitism.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    I can't help but agree as well.

    Couple years ago, I started this wednesday night get-together amoung a group of generally liberal friends. It was awesome, everyone was having fun, great vibe, etc.

    Then we decided we were going to put on a show for a local event.
    And the girl in charge decide to come up with horrifyingly bigoted political morality play for a story line.
    Get this:
    Society is composed of a bunch of birds who live happy and free and have no particular economic needs. One day some birds discover some shiny metalic stuff that makes them obsessed and evil. (Her original idea was that they should be colored red and blue, hint, hint.)Then the evil birds started oppressing the good happy birds. Worse, the good birds would become contaminated by touching the bad birds and get diseased like them. Eventually, the good birds rise up and kill all the evil birds. Happy ending!

    She couldn't understand how anyone could possibly find this story line morally objectionable, and proceeded to ram this political analogy down everyons throats. Needless to say it totally ruined the entire scene for months, until she gave up and resigned.

  • Lou Dobz||

    Cool story. You're brilliant, and everyone else is stupid. Welcome.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, "we" are stupid because a guy found your politicizing a sporting event bizarre because you do not like the government of the country it is being held in. Sorry, it is not us, it's you.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Perhaps most interestingly, this came before Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement (long overdue, IMO) that the federal government would practice marriage equality.

    Awesome! Incestuous marriage and polygamy are getting legalized as well? That's the correct libertarian result, of course, I just didn't think it would come so soon.

    Oh, wait, are we doing that leftist thing where we say "marriage equality" but really only mean "same sex marriage"?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let's go all the way and divorce the connection between sex and marriage.

    Why can't the member of a rock band enter a multi-partner marriage with each other?

    And we should also remove the exclusivity. So that Tim and bob an john can be married to each other and individually be married to other people too.

    Why not?

  • califernian||

    not a problem when marriage is outside of government

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, goody, now they've got Ray Kelly on. Be afraid. BE VERY AFRAID.

  • ||

    They don't want capitalism any more than they want social conservatism, and trying to bait and switch them is only going to work until the "switch" part. Or to borrow your analogy, Amon Amarth playing Beiber tunes is only going to satisfy the Beiber fans until they actually start playing their own songs - you can't sell Swedish death metal to Justin Beieber fans.

  • ||

    Fucking nesting, how does it work?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Ray Kelly says keeping America terrified is a full time job.

  • Irish||

    The New Yorker: As technology gets better will society get worse?

    Lessons the left has taught me:

    1. It's good when fewer people work.

    2. We should stop technological progress.

    3. Prosperity will then ensue.

    By the way, this article is hilariously awful. They use as an example of how bad technology is a tribe of people who used to starve to death during the winter. This tribe now has problems with alcohol and diabetes ever since technology reached them, so technology is bad.

    Great economics too:

    Technological evolution has a different motive force. It is self-evolution, and it is therefore driven by what we want as opposed to what is adaptive. In a market economy, it is even more complex: for most of us, our technological identities are determined by what companies decide to sell based on what they believe we, as consumers, will pay for.

    No. If a company tries to sell something the consumer doesn't want, the company will go bankrupt. The company does not 'decide' what to sell. The consumer picks among available choices and the industry shifts towards the choices consumers make. In that regard, it is actually more similar to biological evolution than the article admits.

  • SweatingGin||

    From the comments, found the limits of technology. Parse this. Go on, let's see technology parse this. Get useful thoughts out of this:

    Historical literacy might be that people, and automation, meaning water, and cars and engines and fuel, are the gravest, indeed immediate drought bearing down on Cal, obviously the BIG PROBLEM.

    Cultural literacy would be the art/poetry still making intelligence evol from how Prez Bubba C. began to bring labor and business and environmentalism together into a single Amerimeme

    (at least I didn't latinize enememe in the feminine).

    Tech literacy would be the killer shamefaced tablet app-awareness of just what a small percentage of the human race, we newyorker elite consternated by overtech are.

    I say put the minimum wage index to the price of a Senate campaign, state by state, and make the XL Pipeline conditional to water from Alberta to San Diego and SoCal,

    Ask your sili con valley libertariani about dem applets
  • SweatingGin||

    This one is selling something, but worth reposting just for "corporate time"

    That seems to be a new dichotomy to many. But it is not, E.g., the invention of mechanical time some seven hundred years ago, time zones about a hundred years ago, and soon after Daylight Savings Time, each has increasing separated us in more and more elegantly technological ways from something still much needed in our lives: awareness of where our bodies and minds are in natural time not just corporate time. More about the negative consequences of our internal clocks not knowing where our minds and bodies are in natural day & night and a possible technology fix are found at TrueTyme.org.
  • Rich||

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The government requires photo ID's to purchase firearms from federally-licensed gun dealers I do not know why requiring ID to vote is any more problematic.

  • anon||

    He's laughing at the idea that they were required to bring ID to a protest involving bringing ID.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Did You Know segment:

    EVERYONE IN AMERICA IS A HEROIN ADDICT!11!!!1

  • ||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    By the way, this article is hilariously awful.

    Turn the clock back!

    Progress is bad, children, mmmmkay?

  • John||

    Well we have known since the mid 1980s that every kid born after 2000 would be a crack baby. So it makes sense.

  • anon||

    Late to the thread, but this hypothesis makes a lot of sense considering our current predicament.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Marijuana is the gateway drug!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's when I turned it off.

    It's amazing that they never discussed that people with serious pain issues are turning to heroin because the latest twist of the drug war has left doctors afraid of prescribing adequate pain medication.

  • John||

    NFL players are saying that in response to the push to test them more for the evil weed. What would rather have them do during the season, smoke pot or take opium based pain killers?

  • Nazdrakke||

    The NFL profits from players numbing themselves through opiates, but makes nothing when they smoke weed so..

  • ||

    We wouldn't want the guys who smash their brains into early onset dementia and Parkinson's disease for a living and who typically die before they're old enough to collect social security to wreck their bodies with drugs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Which is appropriate, since heroin is not much different from some legal pain meds. Well, if you remove the dishwasher detergent street dealers cut it with.

  • Lyle||

    How do libertarians go about shutting up social conservatives? Should they chain them up, gag them, and lock them in the basement?

  • Christophe||

    No. I think the article assumes social conservatives can be talked into weakening their stances.

    I doubt it, because social conservative often subscribe to socialist-lite economic policy. The moment they can't get republicans to fight the culture war, they'll turn back into blue-dog democrats.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Considering social conservatives are by far the largest non-socialist active political group in the country, liberty is doomed then. Unless you think that socialists can be converted to the cause.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Is Tulpa up on his cross, whining about how reason singlehandedly torpedoed the Romney electoral dreadnought?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not yet but just wait.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I would agree with the broad theme of SoCons giving a boost to liberalism. Most Dems I know are actually all that liberal, and they vote team BLUE not because they believe in Big Government programs and seek to pick the pockets of everyone with a dime in them, but because they hate Team RED SoCon voices and policy prescriptions. When one lives in an America in which only the TEAMS matter and any third parties are near completely excluded from the political process, is it any surprise that young people might be repulsed by a party in which a guy like Frothy-Cum-Out-Of-A-Dude's-Ass is given such a large platform?

    The fact that guys like Santorum are given a a bigger voice by the party than Ron Paul (and soon to be Rand Paul) is exactly why so many people are willing to pull the levers for Team BLUE.

  • R C Dean||

    Most Dems I know are actually all that liberal, and they vote team BLUE not because they believe in Big Government programs and seek to pick the pockets of everyone with a dime in them, but because they hate Team RED SoCon voices and policy prescriptions.

    I believe that TEAM RED could totally roll over on gay marriage and state-subsidized contraception and abortion, and very few TEAM BLUE voters would change their voting patterns.

    The culture war is mostly pretext, handwaving, distraction, with a side order of greasing the skids from prog-dominated "education" and media to prog voting.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "When you come down to it, virtually nothing associated with the liberal platform met with their approval — even legalization of marijuana was dealt with in most instances with a shrug — except, you guessed it, same-sex marriage."

    So, they are single issue voters on an issue that will not affect the overwhelming majority of them compared to all the issues that they are taking a pass on? Which is also discrimination only if you do not take into account the actual differences between heterseual and homosexual relationships. Pardon me, if I am skeptical about this finding, since the homosexual marriage supporter's tactic has been consistently to demoralize their opponents into not fighting. What this article is advocating does not make much sense that SSM is only thing young people are ideologically motivated about.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What this article is advocating does not make much sense that SSM is only thing young people are ideologically motivated about.


    Also, believing that same-sex "marriage" is appropriate public policy does not translate into believing that opponents of such as immoral.

  • taker||

    If "marriage equality" means removing the tradition and word "marriage" from the legal lexicon, I'm all for it. Government has no legitimate role in the definition of personal relationships, which include plural relationships and matters of control, inheritance and the like. If you want to legally entangle yourself, call a lawyer and create a corporation.

    But "married" people, or at least procreating heterosexual people (the vast majority of heterosexual couples) will continue to be responsible for creating and raising the next generation for the foreseeable future. That is the primary reason for marriage. Why would we need it without? Inheritance would not even exist lacking children. Marriage has been about a lot of things over the years, but "love" between two people has only been on the criteria list for the last 50 years or so. Gay people cannot and will not fulfill that role, and Eric Holder's opinions are crassly political and financial, mot moral. There is no moral legal right regards groups, only individuals.

  • R C Dean||

    A seriously smaller government is a real possibility with electoral victories in 2014 and 2016. Let’s not jeopardize them by emphasizing [gay marriage,] an issue more properly, and unquestionably more successfully, dealt with in the private realm.

    This puzzles me. The point of the gay marriage movement is to make (confirm that?) marriage something to be dealt with by the State, not in any private realm. There will be no way whatsoever to deal with gay marriage "more successfully" in the private realm once it is fully licensed by the state.

    And we already know that licensing is just the thin edge of the wedge for expanding the class of legally privileged groups to include gay people under the civil rights laws. Thus, removing even more of anyone's interactions with gay people from the private realm to the state.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Replace 'gay' with 'interracial' and take it back to 1950.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Differences in sex are not comparable to differences in race.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    On the other hand, Cytotoxic is very comparable to an idiot.

  • Calidissident||

    That's not really relevant to the argument RC Dean is making. You can make consistent arguments for interracial marriage and against gay marriage, but not based on the reasoning RC Dean is using (regarding the licensing of such marriages)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Take it back to 1972, when Baker v. Nelson was decided.

  • Tony||

    What is this gibberish? Recognizing people's right to marry is an effect of recognizing them as not even a protected class but as a merely coequal one.

  • Robert||

    Tears ago a friend gave me a quiz of his own devising, designed to peg respondents ideologically. (See, libertarians are not the only ones to concoct things like the WSPQ and to think that existing categories are inadequate.) His instructions were to say whether I felt favorable or unfavorable to each item (each was a noun or brief noun phrase) without thinking much about any of them—to give my "gut-level" rxn.

    See, to me, the mere acknowledgement of the importance of gut-level, non-analytic takes on things is itself a way to categorize respondents. Regardless of my answers, the fact that he thought such responses to be a good way to categorize people ideologically pegged him as being in a very different category from me.

    So, anybody who approaches, for instance, the issues being considered by Roger Simon in an analytic way is going to frustrate those of the ideologies they are supposed to divide. I come to a combination of opinions on the questions on the table about "social issues" that one could not easily predict on the basis of gut level feelings. If I explain the reasons for my views, my reasoning is likely to upset and possibly even disgust or horrify both those who are pro- and anti- some of these stands!

  • Erik Jay||

    "...many of the political linkages borne out of the Cold War era in U.S. politics..."

    Who carried those dang linkages out of the Cold War era, and where did they take them?

    Gadzooks.

  • minarchist||

    If Rand Paul has his way, social conservative may come around.

    http://news.yahoo.com/rand-pau.....56575.html

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