The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
David French to the New York Times
The former First Amendment litigator and Dispatch co-founder becomes a columnist at the New York Times.
The New York Times has hired conservative lawyer and commentator David French as a regular opinion columnist, beginning January 30.
French has been a senior editor at The Dispatch, which he helped found, and a contributor to The Atlantic. He was also a writer at National Review Online for several years.
As long-time VC readers likely know (but others may not), French previously served as the President of FIRE (then known as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). He also served as an attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, working primarily on religious liberty issues. He also served as a JAG in the U.S. Army from 2007 to 2014, and was awarded a Bronze Star.
Although quite conservative, French has been very critical of pro-Trump and nationalist conservatives, particularly those who embrace illiberal political ideas. For instance, here is French's 2019 debate with Sohrab Ahmari on how the political Right should respond to growing illiberalism on the Left.
I look forward to his column.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The readers/staff of the New York Times will probably not demand his ouster, now that war and speech suppression are more popular on the left.
Times has often had multiple "useful idiot" conservatives.
Narrator: French is not, in fact, a conservative.
French is what we call a "GOP establishment democrat-lite". He supports democrat policies and candidates. Calling him a conservative does not make him one any more than it makes WaPo's Maggie Haberman a conservative. These news sites hire these anti-conservative leftists to present the GOPe view-point, give them a "conservative" title, and then point to them as proof of their presenting a balanced view. LOL. To them, a "balanced view" is when the GOP agrees with the policies of the left.
French has been against every policy promoted by the conservative wing of the GOP party for the past 6 to 8 years or so. He is a Biden supporter, for goodness sake! I guess articles such as this is why the word "gas-lighting" was the word of the year for 2022.
French has been against every policy promoted by the conservative wing of the GOP party for the past 6 to 8 years or so.
Most of what the GOP has supported has been circling the wagons to defend Trump's utter contempt for democracy and the law.
Where "we" refers to brain-damaged people.
There is no conservative wing of the GOP. There's just a MAGA wing. And yes, he's opposed to that. They don't promote "policies" at all — remember, they refused to publish a party platform in 2020 because "Heil Trump" was their entire message.
French continues to support small government, freedom of religion, individual liberty, pro-life agenda and other family values. It's the GOP that has abandoned these things, so he doesn't align with them.
Did he prefer Biden to Trump? Yes. All principled conservatives did. That's not because they're democrats; it's because they're decent people who are not mindless rabid partisans. Biden has many bad ideas, but he doesn't want to overthrow the government and replace the president with a dictatorship.
Inevitable things are inevitable.
"French's 2019 debate with Sohrab Ahamri"
Ahamri's JAG line was perfect. Rest is just noise.
Ahamri is a theocratic asshole.
Maybe but he smashed French's pretensions to be some sort of conservative arbiter.
Maybe the clowns at NRO will once again suggest him as a presidential candidate in 2024 like they did in 2016.
I think that was Bill Kristol, not NR. Though French was =employed= by NR, to its everlasting shame.
What an odd time to throw in a gratuitous adverb. As compared to… Bernie? AOC? Rashida Tlaib?
Perhaps NYT finally woke up and realized Ross Douthat and David Brooks weren’t providing enough cover anymore and are hoping to keep the music playing with a fresh face.
Hardly a "fresh face".
He worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom? I thought those guys were beyond the pale.
Atlanta Newspaper (remember Newspapers?) "Atlanta Urinal & Constipation" went to a "Balanced" Editorial page a few years back, of course the only "Balance" is they have both a Liberal and a ""Conservative" criticizing Trump,
Frank "Los Angeles Times "Associate"(AKA Paperboy) 1975-1978"
Why the hatred for French?
He's not my favorite by a long shot, but he does seem to be quite conservative.
Is Trump-worship now a prerequisite for being respected on the right?
I figure Mr. French must not be bigoted enough for these Volokh Conspiracy fans. (He seems amply superstitious.)
Prof. Volokh, meanwhile, tossed a gratuitous series of vile racial slurs to his fans today.
Carry on, clingers. But only so far as your betters permit.
“Is Trump worship now a prerequisite for being respected on the right?”
Yep.
No, but a lack of Trump hatred is. You don't have to like the guy, you just can't publicly hate him.
"No, but a lack of Trump hatred is. "
I disagree. Its a lack of hatred for Trump's voters that matters.
Going hard against Trump is a rejection of his voters, which are the largest group in the party. Its insulting and counterproductive, just ask Liz Cheney whose voters roundly rejected her.
Fortunately for Mr. French, he’ll get his paycheck from the Times notwithstanding the fact that most conservatives have long ago rejected him.
Conservatives tend to be half-educated, superstitious, bigoted, backwater, irrelevant, disaffected culture war casualties. Should Mr. French be troubled by their lack of affection?
Jeez, all Mr. French ever did was take Buffy/Jody all around New York City, and Chaperone "Sissy"'s (Hey Now!) dates, why the hatred for the guy?
That depends on the definition of "worship."
Does it mean "voting for Trump against a Democrat?"
By that definition, anyone who voted for Biden in preference to Trump worshipped Biden.
Now that Trump has credible challengers (I don't mean French), we'll see how many "worshippers" stick with Trump against the country's interests.
We'll also see the reaction to people who announce they support, say, DeSantis for President. Will De Santis become the next Goldstein, whom every principled conservative must oppose?
I, personally, hope for a serious third-party alternative, but some people deem themselves trapped into supporting major-party candidates for fear of helping the other major party. I'm not going to call them "worshippers" of the candidate they reluctantly support, whoever it may be.
'By that definition, anyone who voted for Biden in preference to Trump worshipped Biden.'
Then it obviously doesn't mean that because no-one worships Biden the way his supporters worship Trump.
"no-one worships Biden the way his supporters worship Trump"
And most people who voted for Trump don't "worship" him, either.
Just as most people who voted for Obama weren't like the starry-eyed personality cultists who got such media attention.
In fact, there were people who voted for both Obama *and* Trump, not out of a cult of personality in either case, but because the candidate they supported seemed (*seemed,* mind you) to be against politics-as-usual. A fairly low bar to clear when we realize what politics-as-usual means in practice.
Dismissing anyone who votes for some candidate as an irrational Other is an excellent means for dismissing any valid concerns they may have, and ignoring the problems which left people feeling so disillusioned they supported these candidates to begin with.
‘And most people who voted for Trump don’t “worship” him, either.’
Possibly, but the cult is a notable part of his base.
‘In fact, there were people who voted for both Obama *and* Trump’
Quite a falling-off. ‘Not politics as usual’ can cover a wide spectrum, but Obama turned out to be a centrist and Trump was obviously a crook, both ‘politics as usual’ in their own ways.
‘Dismissing anyone who votes for some candidate as an irrational Other’
Trump voters were feted as True Americans from the Heartlands, the Excluded Middle, and it’s been a truism since even before his election that they were somehow Driven To Vote For Trump because liberals were mean to them and Obama existed. But they’re also the people who embraced Pizzagate and Qanon and the Big Lie. Disillusionment is not their problem. Too many illusions might be.
"it’s been a truism since even before his election that they were somehow Driven To Vote For Trump because liberals were mean to them and Obama existed"
I thought we just agreed that some Trump voters were also Obama voters.
I suppose the first time(s) around they were Real Americans with Serious Concerns, and the second time(s) around they had transmogrified into moral monsters.
No, we agreed that some Obama voters also voted for Trump. They hardly constitute his base.
‘and the second time(s) around they had transmogrified into moral monsters.’
I was never convinced of the characterisation first time around, what they are now is, hopefully, dwindling. But if wanting to overturn the election because their guy lost isn’t morally suspect, then what is it?
Again, most Trump voters didn't go off and riot. Likewise, Biden voters were mostly peaceful.
You do understand what an indictment of Trump supporters to have to say 'well, most of them didn't do an insurrection?'
About the same as the indictment that Biden voters were mostly peaceful (But fiery!) in the proceeding several years?
"You do understand what an indictment of Trump supporters to have to say ‘well, most of them didn’t do an insurrection?’"
Did you want me to be more specific on Biden's voters?
In any case, no, I don't go in for guilt by association. Voting for someone doesn't taint you with all the other people who voted similarly.
‘About the same as the indictment that Biden voters were mostly peaceful (But fiery!) in the proceeding several years’
You do get that they were protesting police violence, not doing anything in support of Trump.
‘Voting for someone doesn’t taint you with all the other people who voted similarly.’
Getting tainted with what the guy you voted for does, though, is unavoidable. Besides my point was never ‘all Trump voters are willing to go to jail for Trump,’ just that it’s kind of extraordinary that there are any at all, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd do the same for Biden.
Slice the salami thin enough, and you can make all sorts of distinctions.
Biden voters included some of the fiery-but-peacefuls.
Sarcastro, most Obama/Biden voters didn’t burn down Minneapolis or Portland. Or loot anything. I’m damning them with faint praise, I guess.
I’m guessing that’s your point.
A lot of Trump voters didn’t care about Trump. They voted against Clinton. A lot of Biden voters didn’t care for him or progressive policies. They voted against Trump. You’re still living in the fantasy world where a bunch of us love our political parties. Polls are showing that a majority of us think they both suck and want a new choice.
The riots after the protests were not part of the protest.
They were not asked for nor planned for by the Democratic Party.
They were along side the riots.
Planned by the Democratic Party? No. Encouraged by individual democratic politicians and left-leaning media? Every day.
“This is the expected outcome of rage”. “The protests are 93% peaceful.” A CNN reporter standing in front of a raging building fire reporting with a chyron about peaceful protests. And my personal favorite, the insipid “the victim has insurance so they’ve not been harmed”.
"You do get that they were protesting police violence, not doing anything in support of Trump."
You do get that once somebody starts smashing windows, looting, and setting buildings on fire, I don't give a shit about what they claim to be protesting, right?
I get that when certain people get brutalised by the police you suddenly love state violence.
And whither the 2nd amendment, if that is the case? Will you resist tyranny without smasing windows or setting anything on fire?
Well, yeah, that's kind of the tenor here: That, at this point, he only looks conservative to left-wingers. Not 'fellow' conservatives.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but it does appear that he prioritizes being anti-Trump over being pro-conservative, to the point where he'd rather the GOP lost races where a pro-Trump conservative was running.
Well, maybe he doesn't view Trumpism as really conservative, or is prepared to sacrifice short-term policy gains to keep lunatics out of power.
But I am curious what conservative positions he rejects. I know he support RFMA, which seems to have cost him admiration on the right, but still holds to a personal view that SSM is wrong, and he has a sort of anti-gay background. But foreign policy, taxes, abortion, etc?
It's not so much that he rejects conservative positions, which is why I said it wasn't entirely fair. It's that he prioritizes purging they party of all Trump influence over winning on those positions.
He'd rather lose feeling righteous, than win making compromises. Or win associating with people he thinks are icky. Or, win...
OK, really, he'd rather just lose feeling righteous. At some point people start to suspect somebody like that is really playing for the other team.
Brett, you just demonstrated what we’re saying. Yeah, French agrees with most conservative principles, but his tone toward Trump is bad.
What is it that makes Trump a conservative? Trump has always been pretty much about Trump and only Trump. And the only policy position I’ve heard him advocate for in the last couple of years is a redo of the 2020 election.
The “Trump is a threat to democracy” stuff is overwrought bullshit. Hell, the left’s war on free speech is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump. Trump is just a megalomaniac that behaves like a petulant child. He’s neither liberal or conservative.
Tone? Who's talking about "tone"? I don't mind if people diss Trump, I do that myself. And I've been saying for years that Trump wasn't genuinely a conservative, he was just playing to his voters. Which was more than the Bushes were interested in doing.
But he was just playing to his voters, pragmatically, which is why we got that bump stock ban from him when the NRA told him they wouldn't count it against him.
And I'm quite frank about saying that I think Trump took his election challenges too far, and has lost it since. He's showing his age, for sure.
But French took hating Trump to the point where he'd rather we lost everything, if that was the cost of getting rid of Trump. And Trump, while far from ideal, was not remotely THAT bad.
'And I’ve been saying for years that Trump wasn’t genuinely a conservative, he was just playing to his voters'
You'd think when a crooked NY real estate mogul who welches on debts starts telling you what you want to hear you'd be on your gurard, but no.
Let me guess: you voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, right?
Neither of whom have a Trump University in their resume.
The key thing in my estimation is that he wanted to be known as a great President, his narcissism would admit no lesser goal. And he was already wealthy, so he had no particular need to profit financially from the office.
It swiftly became clear that Democrats would never approve of him no matter what he did. Just the "R" after his name assured that.
So his best bet at reaching his goal was to make conservative voters very happy. And unlike your typical establishment RINO, he had no ideological commitments that would get in the way of that.
If you can't get somebody who's ideologically on your side, second best is somebody who has no ideology, but at least wants to do things that will make you happy.
'And he was already wealthy, so he had no particular need to profit financially from the office.'
And yet he, his daughter and son-in-law made out like gangsters, so I don't know why you're still clinging to that premise which was laughable even before he was elected.
'It swiftly became clear that Democrats would never approve of him no matter what he did.'
You elected someone who would NEVER work with Democrats, and if he HAD worked with Democrats it would have been seen as a betrayal, you can't keep whinging about it now.
'And unlike your typical establishment RINO, he had no ideological commitments that would get in the way of that.'
He had no ideology, no principles, and no clue how to implement his Big Stupid Ideas.
'but at least wants to do things that will make you happy.'
Yeah, telling you things that make you happy without having the ability to make any of them a reality - what a maverick.
"And yet he, his daughter and son-in-law made out like gangsters,"
While HE lost money hand over fist while in office.
Is that what those tax returns show?
We don't know the counterfactual, Brett, but he was burning through money and credit well before he was in office.
Sarcastr0, I know you dismiss Forbes as knowing nothing about money, but still: The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump, 2022
There's a handy graph there. In 2008 he was worth about $3B. He took a hit in the recession, went down to $2B in 2009. Had recovered to about $4.5B in 2015, when he decided to run for President. By 2020 he was down to $2.5B, (Refreshing to see a politician who DOESN'T unaccountably become wealthier in office.) and by last year had gotten back to about $3.2B.
This isn't a guy whose wealth consists of stocks and bonds. He's a businessman whose wealth consists of actively managed companies that suffer when he's off doing something else. He knew he'd lose money being President.
But as a thoroughgoing narcissist, the fame of having been President was worth a billion or so.
I guess you didn't check out his tax returns yet.
Didn't Trump game his way onto the Forbes rich list?
First, yes, he gamed – lied, to be precise – his way onto the Forbes list, at least initially.
Second, I am aware of no evidence that Trump is a particularly skilled manager. Multiple bankruptcies of his businesses are not a positive sign. The idea that his net worth declined because he wasn’t actively involved in management while President is laughable. Do you believe that the jump Forbes shows from $2.5B in 2020 to $3.2B in 2022 was due to his intense focus on managing his golf courses over the past two years, making sure the fairways were properly maintained, etc.?
Third, Trump inherited a lot of money and property. Some of that grew without his involvement.
Indeed:: In 2018, an exposé by The New York Times[b] revealed that Trump and his wife, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, provided over $1 billion (in 2018 currency) to their progeny overall, while effectively evading over $500 million in gift taxes. Trump illicitly contributed several million dollars to Donald between 1987 and 1991, and shortly before his death (while suffering from Alzheimer’s disease), transferred the bulk of his apartment buildings to his surviving children; several years later, they sold these for over 16 times their previously declared worth.
So a fair amount of the runup from 1982 to 2000 was inheritance, not skill.
Finally, consider this. The Forbes chart shows him worth .2B in 1982. At the end of that year the S&P500 stood at 144. Today it closed at 3924, up 26 times. Yet the Forbes estimate of his wealth, at $3.2B, is only 16 times the 1982 number.
Brett, as I have explained to you repeatedly, Forbes does not know how much money Donald Trump has. Forbes guesses, based on a combination of publicly available information and self-reporting.
Someone who actually saw Trump's private books in the mid-2000s, Timothy O'Brien, says that Trump was worth about a tenth of what he claimed (and what Forbes estimates).
As I've pointed out to you multiple times, Wilbur Ross, who Trump appointed as Commerce Secretary, was on Forbes' list for a number of years, until in the middle of his term at Commerce Forbes looked more closely and decided that he simply made up billions of dollars that didn't exist and claimed them as his own.
No, his wealth consists of passively managed companies. He bankrupted most of his businesses that he actively managed, like his casinos. Collecting rent from tenants ad club members, and royalties for the use of his name, is not active management.
To add to what DMN says, you yourself point out that Trump's wealth is based on real estate properties that he owns, more or less.
Under the best of circumstances, valuing such properties is a bit of a guessing game. Without access to information on revenues, for example, the guesses have very wide confidence intervals, shall we say.
Forbes also gives figures as to the debt each property carries. Probably, those numbers are based on public filings - (which might or might not be accurate, but never mind that.) What Forbes doesn't know is how much personal debt Trump carries.
pretty sure it's "Welshes"
and at least the Crooked NY Real Estate Mogul didn't get us this close to WW3. What's Senescent J gonna do when the Roosh-uns slaughter a bunch of Amurican "Observers"??? Or sink an Aircraft Carrier (I know, the Roosh-un Military is a bunch of unmotivated draftees, that's what the Germans thought in 1941.
Frank "Never Welshes, just pulls a Senescent J and says I don't remember making the bet"
" He’d rather lose feeling righteous, than win making compromises. "
That seems an especially stupid observation. Ryan and Boehner, as I recall, refused to appease the wingnut fringe. McCarthy differed; he courted those jerks. And he has spent a fair amount of time learning that you can't reason with delusional extremists and you do not benefit from appeasing disaffected kooks.
Remind me again—how much winning have we been seeing from the Trump side lately?
Brett Bellmore:
Compromise is good.
Also Brett Bellmore (from the Sasse thread):
Compromise is bad.
Depends. Compromising on what restaurant to go to? That's fine.
Compromising with people intent on attacking a basic civil liberty? Yeah, that's bad.
"I know he support RFMA, which seems to have cost him admiration on the right"
By Jove, he did.
https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/6377fb0dce44df0038de4c62/respect-for-marriage-same-sex-religious-freedom/
Well, that's great if you want government support for SSM.
Those who lack enthusiasm for that cause will lack enthusiasm for French.
This time, French can't say that he's striking back against Trump. Trump, in fact, seems fairly easygoing on affirming gays.
So it's not a case where French reluctantly sets aside his conservative priorities in deference to the great patriotic anti-Trump crusade.
Well, that’s great if you want government support for SSM.
That's not the way I'd frame it. Nobody is subsidizing SSM, at least not any more than we subsidize heterosexual marriage. The bill merely protects SSM in case Clarence Thomas gets his way and Obergfell is overruled.
In that case it just legalizes SSM at the federal level, and wouldn't even require states to legalize SSM, just to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.
Legalizes? This is a debate over which kinds of sexual association should be called marriage, with the accompanying benefits.
Lawrence v. Texas legalized the act of sodomy, if committed between consenting adults in a private dwelling without risk of disease. This in effect legalizes same-sex lovers committing to a stable, monogamous, lifelong relationship. That was in 2003, and many states had jumped the gun and legalized it before then.
Anyway, no matter how you describe French's position on the issue, it goes beyond "omg he doesn't worship Trump."
This is a debate over which kinds of sexual association should be called marriage, with the accompanying benefits.
Yes. It is.
And what the bill basically says is that if that a marriage is recognized by the state in which it was entered into, the federal government and all other states are required to recognize it as valid.
Opponents seem to be motivated mostly by religious objections, for whatever weight you are inclined to assign to that, especially given that for all the objections the law does not really affect the religioius objectors.
The law undertakes to provide certain specific protections for religious dissenters, and also has some vague language about other protections remaining in place. Stipulate that those protections are totally adequate, after all, French says they are.
A more interesting question is posed by the SSM-recognition part of the law, which ultra-right-wing Christian fanatic David French supports. With a stroke of the pen, Congress repudiates the idea that there is some kind of connection between marriage and the perpetuation of the human species. And supportive intellectuals can be found to affirm that there has *never been* any such connection.
Apparently, this is the proposition around which all people of good will must now rally.
And the thing is that this doesn’t even seem to be connected to French’s Never-Trump ideas. Trump has been quite "affirming" of gay people.
With a stroke of the pen, Congress repudiates the idea that there is some kind of connection between marriage and the perpetuation of the human species.
This is a major overstatement. No one denies the connection, or that it is important. But that doesn't mean that the perpetuation of the species is the only reason marriage exists.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to have children marry all the time, to general approbation. Should we deny marriage licenses to 60-year-olds? Should we outlaw contraception, even by married couples?
"No one denies the connection"
Of course, several of the people I've quoted below, don't mention such a connection in making their "conservative case for gay marriage."
And of course, it's trickled down into the popular culture -
"Love is love
"A phrase meaning that the love expressed by an individual or couple is valid regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of their lover or partner.
"Mark: Wow, why the heck are you dating that trans woman if you cannot have biological kids with her?
"George: To me it doesn't matter if she is trans or cis. Love is love."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Love%20is%20love
"Love is love" is not inconsistent with the existence of a connection between marriage and the perpetuation of the species. It only means that connection is not required.
Exactly.
Procreation is not an aim of SSM, so why would it enter an argument in favor of SSM?
There can be many legitimate reason s for doing something. That one of them doesn't apply in a particular case doesn't invalidate the others.
Additionally, there is a connection between the marriages of same-sex couples and the perpetuation of the species where one the couple is the biological parent. That is, the couple (in part) gets married to raise such a child.
"Procreation is not an aim of SSM"
Indeed it's not.
I think bernard is not correct on that point, although I suspect it is less of an aim.
Josh,
What you describe certainly happens, as does adoption, in SSM's.
That's a benefit, but I would define that as raising children, not procreation.
Semantic point.
I don't have a dog in the fight as to who does or doesn't qualify as conservative, but is support for same sex marriage necessarily disqualifying? Marriage tends to promote stability and formation of family units for gays as it does for straights. It is not as if unmarried same sex couples will abandon their coupling if marriage again became unavailable to them. (Perhaps a small fraction will marry someone of the opposite sex and fulfill their carnal impulses on the downlow, but how does that promote conservative values?)
Is it all about having a disfavored class of people for straight, cisgendered people to look down upon?
I really don’t care what conservatives *ought* to think – I’ve come to realize I’m only a conservative because I am not up-to-date on supporting all the woke issues – which seems to be the modern definition of conservative.
I certainly await, with considerable eagerness, for the proof that the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision made same-sex-attracted people more stable than they were previously (are you suggesting they weren't stable before?).
I’m surprised the evidence hasn’t been published already, since it would be so helpful to the cause.
I certainly await, with considerable eagerness, for the proof that the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision made same-sex-attracted people more stable than they were previously
And what if it didn't?
What is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples these days?
The remark to which I was replying was
“Marriage tends to promote stability and formation of family units for gays as it does for straights”
Who cares if it makes gays more stable? Not the SC’s department. Their job is to protect rights. Which is what they did.
Again, the remark to which I was replying was "Marriage tends to promote stability and formation of family units for gays as it does for straights."
Which, by the way, was a key talking point of the SSM advocates (along with "how does my marriage affect you?").
Again, what difference does it make in a civil rights discussion whether that talking point is true or not?
Because it's a political cause, promoted by political arguments.
Even by the lawyers seeking judicial rulings in favor of SSM.
Here's David Boies' "Conservative Case for Gay Marriage:"
"Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another....
"When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others."
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-case-gay-marriage-70923
This is the basis on which this policy was sold, not only to the public, but to the courts as well.
Shouldn't we be curious about the evidence that the policy had the promised effect?
"The [SSM] movement is about equality and rights, yes, but it is also about responsibility and obligation. Marriage joins couples not just in a contract with each other but also in a pact with their community, their kids, their God and millenniums of custom. Gay and lesbian Americans yearn for those bonds.
"The father of conservatism, Edmund Burke" [yada yada]
"The public looks at marriage equality and sees the greatest social conservative movement of our time."
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/conservative-case-for-gay-marriage/
"...same-sex marriage has always been a conservative cause....
"...the movement for same-sex marriage ought to be seen as a last-ditch effort to save a dying institution, not destroy it....
"What could be more "conservative" than encouraging monogamy and stability among gays, and gay men in particular, a demographic that, thanks to the absence of women, is inherently more promiscuous?"
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/conservative-case-gay-marriage-article-1.1279092
"Marriage also promotes outcomes that we as conservatives should support: stable homes, with committed couples who take care of themselves without government intrusion. We know the benefits to society from healthy marriages, and we celebrate them."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/19/republicans-gay-marriage-young-column/1999243/
Shouldn’t we be curious about the evidence that the policy had the promised effect?
Well, we can be curious. I suppose it's an interesting question.
But how do you propose to gather the relevant data if SSM is illegal? Then there is no data.
So suppose we legalize SSM and wait ten years and then do a study. Lo and behold, it turns out the advocates were wrong and it does not promote stability. What then? Nullify all the marriages and outlaw SSM? Why?
And how do you propose to measure this anyway? What are you going to compare SSM to, heterosexual marriage, unmarried gays?
I think what you are saying is that, before approving of SSM, you want evidence of its benefits, but that evidence is not available until SSM is approved.
“I think what you are saying”
…is as usual not what I’m saying.
The proponents of SSM recognition made specific promises about the good effects of their proposed policy. They indignantly asked who wouldn’t support those wonderful results.
Now we’re in phase 2, and it turns out those arguments were all irrelevant. Just kidding, it doesn’t matter anyway.
The proponents of SSM recognition made specific promises about the good effects of their proposed policy. They indignantly asked who wouldn’t support those wonderful results.
Now we’re in phase 2, and it turns out those arguments were all irrelevant. Just kidding, it doesn’t matter anyway.
So you want to do a study, and if it shows that these things didn't happen you want to do what?
And since we're talking about arguments, let me turn things around. Opponents of SSM made all sorts of predictions about its dire effects - the destruction of the family, descent into moral chaos, etc.
Well, we have SSM. Where are the collapsing families, the heterosexual marriages falling apart, all because the next-door neighbors are a gay married couple?
Attacks on the family come from all sorts of directions. It would be unfair to the SSM people to single them out, but they're having their chance for a whack at the pinata.
And we've gone from "how does my marriage affect you" to "if you don't want to assist at a gay marriage, you should go out of business."
Firstly, it is insulting to same-sex couples to say they wish to degrade marriage. Secondly, you didn't address bernard's request for evidence. Thirdly, serving same-sex commitment ceremonies pre-dates recognition of those relationships by the state as marriages.
-I never speculated on their subjective feelings.
-Bernard said the evidence was irrelevant and didn’t affect the situation, which is contrary to the assurances of SSM supporters while they were still trying to convince the public.
-A regime where private parties have to recognize SSM and the government *doesn’t* have to, is unsustainable, as hinted at by the fact that it wasn’t sustained. And that's an example of the harm done by the "how does my marriage affect you" movement.
"but they’re having their chance for a whack at the pinata" sounded to me like a slur against same-sex couples, or at least to supporters of SSM.
What bernard said about evidence in support of the conservative case for SSM has no bearing on whether you think there is evidence for the conservative against SSM.
I thought your argument was state-sanctioned SSM will lead to the harm (*) of businesses being required to serve same-sex commitment ceremonies. Now, it's the other way around? That's not an argument against state-sanctioned SSM.
(*) That strikes me as any more a harm than being required to serve a Jewish commitment ceremony.
And it would be an insult to gay divorcees (in the old sense of gay) to say they’re hurting marriage. In fact, let’s just skip to the part where we’re offended on behalf of everyone.
And I’ll take pre-emptive offense at the idea that refusing to bake a cake for Adam and Steve is the same as discriminating against Jews. After all, the “Respect for Marriage Act” purports to recognize the following:
“Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
Congress has yet to say anything similar about discrimination against Jewish marriages.
The SSM movement wants both the government *and* private parties to affirm their particular form of sexual association. Who today is purporting to separate the two causes?
Can you think of another sexual union, unrecognized by the government, which private parties nonetheless have to recognize? Polyamory, perhaps?
If such a policy were attempted, I don’t see how it could survive compelling-interest review as against a religious objector. If there’s no interest compelling enough for the govt to recognize a union, how can it be compelling enough for the govt to force private recognition?
Of course gay couples want the dignity of recognition on an equal basis as straight couples. I think that's what you are really against.
But instead, you claim no ill will towards gay couples and decry the harm done to a business that is forced to serve same-sex marriages. Yet, you won't acknowledge the harm done to a business being forced to serve a Jewish marriage. I can only conclude you don't think there is harm about forcing businesses per se. The harm only attaches to relationships you don't think deserve equal recognition (and we are back to what I think is your true position).
Bernard said the evidence was irrelevant and didn’t affect the situation, which is contrary to the assurances of SSM supporters while they were still trying to convince the public.
What I was trying to do was ask you, even if you could somehow show that these claims did not hold up, what course of action you would favor.
You can't, or won't answer that.
I further suggested that it was an extremely difficult question to answer, both for conceptual reasons and because it will be a number of years before anything resembling the necessary data is available.
What I didn't point out, though I now will, is that SSM has widespread approval, so we might begin toi sense that it has not massively disrupted society.
I think you are merely unhappy to have been on the losing side.
Not only do you make a question-begging use of “equal,” you expect me to accept your definition without evidence asked or given.
From your definition of ill-will, I presume you yourself bear ill will toward people who are threatened with being driven out of business for holding to previously-accepted view of marriage as a man/woman arrangement.
There's a specific Congressional finding that “Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people” etc. Congress recognizes, even if you don't, that this is a different situation from discriminating against Jews.
But as long as we're speculating about motives, I suspect that you want Congress to remove this language as soon as it has the votes to do so. Not to mention the finding that “such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.” In sum, you'd like Congress to tear up this "bipartisan compromise" and break faith with their coalition partners, as well as admitting to the public that they were simply faking their respect for "[d]iverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage."
"What I was trying to do was ask you, even if you could somehow show that these claims did not hold up, what course of action you would favor."
I favor - no government recognition of SSM, no compulsory cakes. What a shocking answer, and I'm sorry that I never gave you the slightest intimation that such was my position, unless of course you count pretty much every comment I made in this thread.
"I further suggested that it was an extremely difficult question to answer, both for conceptual reasons and because it will be a number of years before anything resembling the necessary data is available."
You're not helping yourself, because as I showed, the SSM-fanciers asserted dogmatically that SSM *would* have such wonderful results - results you now say may or may not exist and anyway it doesn't matter.
"What I didn’t point out, though I now will, is that SSM has widespread approval, so we might begin toi [sic] sense that it has not massively disrupted society."
No wonder the public approves it, when they were told it wouldn't affect anyone else (not actually true) and that it would promote stability among gays (you admit you don't know and don't care about that).
It may be too late for this issue, but for the future it would be fun to remind the public about all the broken promises they keep getting on these social issues.
What definition of the word "equal" suits you? For any definition I can think of, you don't support the recognition of same-sex relationships on an equal basis. But, perhaps I misunderstand your position.
Because public attitudes towards gays have only recently changed, as compared to attitudes towards Jews, I understand why businesses object. Nonetheless, I don't like it. As time marches on, I am hopeful most people will view those objections in the same light they view objections to Jewish weddings. So, I guess I hold some ill will combined with understanding and hope for change.
The language in the bill was a concession to the recency of changing attitudes (too many people still object). The future I hope for would be one where those words aren't needed.
So, as I suspected, you *don't* actually think that "reasonable and sincere people" can oppose SSM "based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises."
To you, this language on Congress' part isn't part of a Grand Compromise to settle the SSM question. No, it's just another milestone on the way to even further innovations.
Why, then, should moderates - much less "conservatives" - take this law at all seriously? They're set up for future comparisons to anti-Semites.
And as warned by the govt's lawyer in the Obergefell case, next up is revoking the tax exemptions of private colleges which prohibit sexual activity outside the context of man/woman marriages.
And "if you wanted to stay in business you should have catered Adam and Steve's wedding."
And since concessions and compromises are designed to be merely temporary, while the forces of liberation gather strength for their next push, when will we see the movement for government-sanctioned polyamory and the punishment of private people and companies who refuse to go along?
At this point, what assurances can we believe from the cultural revolutionaries? The only assurance we can believe is that they intend to keep going at an accelerated pace, crushing whatever stands in their way.
"I certainly await, with considerable eagerness, for the proof that the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision made same-sex-attracted people more stable than they were previously (are you suggesting they weren’t stable before?)."
I think you miss my point. I posited that marriage tends to promote stability and formation of family units. Do you dispute that as a general proposition? Is there any reason to think that marriage is less effectual toward those (conservative) ends for gay and lesbian couples than it is for straight couples? I did not suggest that a judicial decision has that effect.
I haven't researched it, but the relevant comparison would be married same sex couples vis-a-vis unmarried same sex couples.
So would they be able to proclaim themselves married and get the benefits of stable relationships, without needing the government's imprimatur?
Or, as indicated by the articles I quoted on The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, would the benefits only accrue if the government officially gives its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to these relationships?
Obviously not, Trump supported same sex marriage a decade before Obama or Hillary did.
"Why the hatred for French?"
It started with "drag queens are a blessing of liberty" and snow balled because he constantly attacks conservatives who disagree with him.
He relies heavily upon courts for any sort of relief for grievances even when the alternative is validly enacted legislation. This was brought out in his complaints over bills restricting what content could be taught in elementary schools. Rather than restrict certain content outright by law, French’s solution was to wait until the content was taught and created a disruptive or hostile learning environment, at which point the parents could engage in litigation. Otherwise, the laws were so poorly written (one of which he erroneously summarized in a joint op-ed in 2022) that teachers would apparently be unable to differentiate between content promoting white guilt and that discussing the history of slavery, for instance.
Here's a teacher who can't!
https://popular.info/p/meet-the-florida-english-teacher
I've posted the text of that law often enough. It very clearly didn't prohibit discussing slavery. It did, just as clearly, prohibit blaming slavery on anybody alive today, as well as a host of other expressions of bigotry.
Baggett is the sort of idiot you'll find in any party. Your link states that the board backed her up on a different book, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", to suggest it will routinely back her up. But that may just be a case of even a broken clock being right twice a day.
You post it a lot. People point out how it can be read to forbid a bunch of normal stuff.
You say it won't be. As though you know.
You don't. You're defending censorship again.
Sarcastr0, the Charge of the Light Brigade can be read as a recipe for Quiche Loraine, of you're so inclined. That doesn't mean it would be a reasonable reading.
She's certainly an idiot, but she's in an environment that somewhat supports her idiocies.
While Baggett's views may not be widely shared her efforts have already restricted dozens of books from Escambia students. Every book that Baggett labels as "pornography" is immediately placed in a "restricted" section of the library. Students can only access these books if they receive special permission from their parents.
125 books are currently under restrictions as a result of Baggett's challenges. They will remain in restricted status until the challenge process is complete. Although Baggett began filing challenges in August, thus far, only one book has made it through the process. And the list of restricted books continues to grow. Baggett submitted 11 additional books on December 2. All of them have been restricted indefinitely.
Sounds like a case for the First Amendment warriors who are (sometimes) so plentiful here.
"Students can only access these books if they receive special permission from their parents. "
The horror! Parental permission for children!!
In every single other context, Brett says, "Who cares what the law actually says? I just know that it will be misused in a nefarious way by evil bureaucrats and Democrats to persecute Republicans." Here, when we have a law that actually is misused, Brett just handwaves it away.
Here's another: https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114616/documents/HHRG-117-GO02-20220407-SD014.pdf
The hatred for French is based on one thing and one thing only: he's sincere. His religion is not a club to beat up Democrats, but something he actually believes in. His principles do not start and end with 'pwning the libs.' He didn't abandon the idea that character in public figures matters just because Trump leapt to the head of the GOP. He doesn't want Wales.
The MAGA and Vichy right hate him because his very existence is a rebuke to them and their low character. He shows that the "I had no choice but to sell my soul" explanation of most of the right was just a rationalization.
Trump’s supporters are Vichyites, meaning that Trump is…oh, I get it, and may I say that’s a highly original and creative metaphor.
Setting aside your adoption of Robert Bolt's Cymryphobia, our binary politics indicates that when you oppose one "side" you promote the other. French simply thinks that compared to Democrats Trump is the greater evil. Others thought that Trump was the lesser evil in that situation. I guess French's decision means an unambiguous choice of rectitude over compromise, while the other decision means Nazism. That certainly makes sense.
And if any of us tries to go beyond the two-party cartel, then we'll discover that, while binaries are bad where sex is concerned, they're essential where parties are concerned. You must have the Donks or the Elephants or you're Not Being Serious, not like the serious people comparing their opponents to Hitler.
Others thought that Trump was the lesser evil in that situation.
Ah yes. That's an excuse you hear a lot.
But it's often a lie. The fact is, Trump's supporters weren't sighing and saying, "Well he's an ignorant bigoted, jackass, but we'll do the best we can to fight off his worst impulses."
No. They were cheering him enthusiastically, applauding everything he said, parroting his (many) obvious lies, defending him vigorously against any and all criticism.
Did he bankrupt companies, stiff creditors, defraud those who signed for Trump University, steal money from the Trump Foundation, mock a disabled reporter, try to extort Zelensky, plot to overthrow the 2020 election, etc., etc? His defenders jumped eagerly to deflect all criticism, no matter how much willful blindness it took.
So no, for most of his supporters the "lesser evil" defense doesn't cut it.
Yet when anyone gets beyond the two-party binary they aren't being serious...shouldn't they be talking about Hitler and Trump steaks and other vital, serious issues?
Well, let me ask you the following to illustrate my point.
Suppose, being an intelligent person, you were aware that at least some of the Democrats on the ballot were crooks. Would you refuse in principle to vote for them, casting your vote for competing candidates instead? Or would you decide that the Democratic candidates were lesser evils?
Well, I like to think I would sometimes vote for the competing candidate, or not vote, though I confess there are circumstances where I would, cheerfully or not, vote for the Democrat. I would have done so, most clearly, in the famous David Duke - Edwin Edwards election in LA some decades ago. Pro-Edwards bumper sticker: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important."
Of course, this would depend on the degree of crookedness involved, and the caliber of the opposition.
In any event, as I said, I think the excuse is often, not always, BS, and I think there is plenty of evidence to support that.
You see, Bernard, we're not so different, you and I. I wish I could pet my cat while typing this, to better set the tone.
I too, look to "the degree of crookedness involved, and the caliber of the opposition." And maybe I see more crookedness from both sides than you. On the one hand, this makes me harder to shock or disappoint (it seems Trump is a bad person, yawn), and on the other hand it makes me open to a broader range of choices, including "spoiler" 3rd parties.
And, finally, I notice that the J6 Committee narrative was that Trump fooled many sincere and patriotic voters, and it was the committee’s job to separate those voters from Trump by showing the extent of Trump’s evil.
So, was this outreach actually fake – do the committee members complain in private about all those fascist Trump voters who can’t be reasoned with?
Or were the committee members sincere...but lacking your insight about the pure depths of evil of the Trump voters?
Bad question, for two reasons.
First is the obvious one that I buy the excuse from some, not most.
Second, what does it matter? I said many Trump supporters were enthusiastic, not at all "lesser evil" voters. Whether they were enthusiastic because they really loved Trump or because they were deceived doesn't matter. They were still enthusiastic.
If you tell me a bunch of lies and get me to support you for office, donate money, work for your campaign, etc., I am an enthusiastic supporter, even if, had I known the truth, I wouldn't be.
Do you seriously deny that a large percentage of Trump supporters were enthusiastic, for whatever reason?
I'm sure there were zealots, yes, it's just that the Trump voters I encountered or heard about in meatspace were not fans of his. They knew he was a bad person. They were simply making a judgment that he was (for whatever motive) discussing real issues, and that his opponents were awful.
This is why I keep pointing out that we shouldn't be bamboozled by the donk v. elephant, punch-and-judy binary, but should consider third parties.
Oh, no, with third parties you might have chaos in the House of Representatives with no party being able to elect a Speaker! Can't have that.
French is the kind of conservative that is more happy being a pure loser than winning.
That maybe fine in sports, but their is no purity in politics. A lot of conservatives who opposed Trump in 2016, came around to him because he fights back, sometimes to the point of the absurd, but he fights. To French fighting for your beliefs is unseemly, much better to be a noble loser.
Here is an piece on David French from someone who pays more attention to him than I do:
https://spectator.org/david-french-the-principled-conservative/
If David French is conservative, what he seeks to conserve is not what constitution-loving Americans seek to restore to our republic. I, for one, would gladly conserve the government of Calvin Coolidge, but there is little that has been added to the central government since his presidency that deserves protection.
No true conservative would work at the DNC Pravda.
No conservative is going to avoid being a casualty of the culture war.
Prepare to continue to be vanquished by your betters, clingers.
Wow, now you have a Napoleon complex, too. Your therapist must be working overtime.
If the modern American culture war were a football game, the liberal-libertarian mainstream would be leading the conservatives, 49-10, with three or four minutes remaining in the fourth quarter.
And along the right-wing sideline, the Volokh Conspirators and its fans would be chanting "It Ain't Over Yet, Elitists!"
QED
Do you concede defeat in the culture war, Bored Lawyer, or are you one of the "the Rapture will save us" kooks?
You'll never be able to sleep with other people's young children without committing a crime, Rev.
Just let it go. Your LGBTQ agenda will never win.
Hey, pay some respect to Penn State's greatest Defensive Coach of all times, they're about the only Big 10 team that didn't vomit all over themselves.
You really are poorly educated, aren't you?
If the culture war were a football game, Kirkland would have been the guy who got a concussion in the first drive of the game. And then several more thereafter.
My team has won. Mr. Nieporent's team has lost. This has made Mr. Nieporent -- and plenty of other right-wingers -- quite cranky.
Sorry, but I’m an actual libertarian, not a right winger or a liberal who trolls about “liberal-libertarian alliances.” My only "team" is me.
Prof. Volokh tries to duck the "right-wing" label, too, with unconvincing libertarian drag.
Do you prefer the "often libertarian" costume or the "libertarianish" costume?
I get the impression you ask that question a lot, "Reverend"
What "Costumes" your victims prefer to wear.
And could it be your insensible hatred of all things Southern (C'mon (Man!) Boiled Peanuts, who can't like Boiled Peanuts? and I don't mean the ones Cleetus sells to you suckers on I-95 just south of "South of the Border" I mean the ones you boil yourself, after picking them yourself.
And Bourbon??, who ever asked for a shot of Vermont Straight Bourbon???? (Sorry Queenie, don't go for the Queer Bourbon)
Where was I? oh yeah, you be hatin' on the South, probably because your "Law School" was in Mississippi, that's almost as bad as being Jerry Sandusky,
Frank
I've been around here a long time, Arthur, and I can assure you that DMN's self-description is accurate.
He's also pretty solidly reality-based.
Mr. Nieporent is roughly as libertarian as I am.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Or got a concussion in the first drive of the game, then spent the rest of the game on his back mumbling about all the pretty pink ponies.
I will dance -- and, if so inclined, piss on -- the graves of your political preferences. Winning the culture war has consequences, and they are magnificent!
I get the impression you've used that "Pissing on the Graves of my Enemies" excuse alot, "Reverend"
"I wasn't (redacted) that linebacker, I was pissing on Woody Hayes grave" (There's your Big 10 "Hall of Fame" Coach, best known for punching a Clemson player in another embarrassing Big 10 bowl loss)
Frank
A series of concussions with ongoing CTE would go a long way toward explaining Kirkland.
One doesn't need to be pro-Trump to be a conservative, of course. Lots of conservatives loathe Trump the person. Even more these days feel that Trump the candidate is a loser.
But when one endorses voting for liberals over Trump, that's not a conservative agenda.
But it suits the NYT just fine.
It makes sense to me to for a conservative to support a liberal over Trump if he feels Trump is a grave threat to democracy, Trump could have just as easily run as a liberal (his only ideology is himself) and I (a liberal) would vote for a conservative over him.
"I (a liberal) would vote for a conservative over him."
Nobody believe this.
Bob can't believe other people aren't as partisan a tool as he is.
He has a posting history.
That shows he would never vote for a conservative over Trump-as-a-Democrat?
Do tell.
yes it does
What posts of mine lead you that conclusion?
I agree that Trump could easily have run as a liberal, if he hadn't seen in 2016 that Hillary had a lock on the nomination. I was very thankful that Democrats burned all bridges to him, instead of offering to govern with him from the center.
That's an interesting thought. How do you think the Democrats working with Trump to govern from the center would have worked?
There were enough RINOs in the Republican caucus that they could have pulled it off, I think. The Republican majority in Congress was never that big, and was lousy with RINOs, which is why they accomplished so little during Trump's first two years.
I was wondering what legislation could have passed.
I'm trying to imagine what the dumbed-down populist progressive positions he would have taken to rile up a liberal base would have looked like? Climate change is real - build sea walls everywhere even inland? Socialised health care - hang fraudulent insurers? A continental high speed rail network made of lego?
Any of those. Trump only cares about himself and perhaps two issues: immigration and trade policy. On the former, his position cannot be reconciled with the liberal base. But on the latter, he's closer to Bernie than he is to McConnell.
The coffin they'll bury the Turtle in (eventually) will be made in China, pulled by a Hearse made in Japan, and buried in a grave dug by Mexicans.
Would anyone with half an education trust a product made in Kentucky or by Kentuckians; a vehicle made in Kentucky or operated by a Kentuckian; or a grave located in Kentucky or dug by Kentuckians?
Lots of spending.
There are no RINOs in the GOP caucus, or anywhere in the GOP. As has been true for some time now, the most liberal Republican is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat.
The most liberal Republican must, to be reelected, appear to be more conservative than the most conservative Democrat.
Just as the most conservative Democrat must, to be reelected, appear to be more conservative than the most liberal Republican.
Politicians are chameleons, adept at protective coloration. You never know what their actual opinions are until they're lame ducks, and don't have to worry what the voters might think anymore.
Brett, you aren't a telepath. Your made up hidden disloyalty says a lot about you, and how badly you deal with messy real world issues. It's not that getting political support for what you want is hard, it's that the voted-in politicians are liars!
I don't care what their "actual opinions" are. I care what their actual positions are. The most liberal Republican votes more conservatively than the most conservative Democrat. Whether said Republican is secretly an Al Sharpton supporter is irrelevant; what matters is what he does in office.
How exactly does your theory work out for a piece of bipartisan legislation?
Gun control, gay marriage law, "infrastructure" and the bloated omnibus all found 10+ GOP votes in the Senate. That's in the last 9 months.
When was the last time a controversial GOP bill got 10+ Dem senators?
Would have been better if Republicans had worked with him to govern from the center.
It makes sense to me to for a conservative to support a liberal over Trump if he feels Trump is a grave threat to democracy
I don’t know any conservatives who understood or understand Trump as a “threat to democracy”.
That’s a pure rhetorical canard, the kind of thing which David French might suggest. Trump was never the threat to democracy illustrated by the FBI being engaged in selecting the president.
Trying to steal the 2020 election and Jan 6 anyone (some conservatives were concerned something like that could happen, particularly in light of Trump's effort to pre-steal the election by blackmailing/bribing Zelensky)? Also, those conservatives think your FBI narrative is a pretext for stealing the 2020 election.
Trying to steal the 2020 election and Jan 6 anyone (some conservatives were concerned something like that could happen, particularly in light of Trump’s effort to pre-steal the election by blackmailing/bribing Zelensky)? Also, those conservatives think your FBI narrative is a pretext for stealing the 2020 election.
Those aren't conservatives.
Well there might be a zone. Conservatives consumed by hatred. Consumed by hatred to the point that they've lost contact with reality. I don't know any of them, which is why I'm not sure they exist, but I do see Liz and I wonder just what the fuck.
Cheney is a great example and she is far from alone. She’s a conservative and the hatred she is consumed with is of those who try to undermine democracy by stealing elections, which is the reality of Trump.
Like with George Will’s column in the Washington Post, he’ll be there so the Times’ commentariat can make demeaning comments about what he says, and him personally.
"This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.
ML, why didn't you post the start of the quote:
"It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism..."
You quote a Confederate States of America Chaplain and opponent to women's voting complaining about progress.
Go put on your Confederate Uniform and cry some more, wannabe traitor.
Confederate sympathizers -- fans of traitors, bigots, and losers -- are a core target audience of the white, male, conservative Volokh Conspiracy.
Do you think the quote is interesting? I don't know why you seem so upset.
I really don't think it's interesting.
The 'X Party is the controlled opposition, only I am pure' has been the call of radicals for a very long time.
You have posted laundered Confederate quotes a number of times in the past, and when called on it try and point at the content as 'interesting.'
What's going on is that for most people that content is at best old and outmoded. But you got a thing with the Confederacy and so you think it's 'interesting.'
It's not. You're just a wannabe traitor.
I mean, with your interpretation maybe the quote reveals why conservatism is wrong or something. But the quote has been passed around quite a bit without any of this context of its author having (many years/decades prior) been an able bodied Southerner living in the South during the war and thus involved in the war. That is how I and many others came across it, certainly through no connection with the author's military time 35 years earlier, and surprised that it was written 125 years ago. I know you are obsessed with that particular topic. I won't say it's irrelevant context or irrelevant to the very broad issues raised by any means, but it's quite capable of being assessed on its own.
Your passive voice re: 'has been passed around' is a tell. Maybe in your circles, but not in mine.
This motherfucker was a MORAL PHILOSOPHER living in the South who went into the War with both eyes open. He fucking sucks, and this quote about women's rights does not change that.
The Confederacy has nothing to say to modern America. It's ideals were found to be evil and traitorous; it's rhetoric useful only as rewarmed radicalism. It's paeons to liberty empty.
Nice to see how you've bought in lock stock and barrel to the latest mob mentality that if someone did something bad in their life, then everything in their life was bad and should be categorically rejected.
Actually, not nice at all. But happy new year anyway, Bubba.
He's just virtue signaling. 2022 libs hate confederates 100X more than the people who fought them, its easy for him to be indignant about long dead traitors.
Sarcasto is the kind of guy convinced he'd be the one abolitionist in 1860 Georgia.
Bob from Ohio doesn't try to hide the point that he would have been an ardent slaver.
The Confederacy does not have much to offer as an interesting modern perspective, not.
Part of that is it's moral bankruptcy. Part of it is how much it's bullshit got rewarmed by every other jumped up bigot for the next 150 years.
There is nothing new in that quote, and I've never seen anything 'interesting' in quotes by any Confederates, other than their use in debunking Lost Cause shitters.
Jeezus, you guys "Won", don't have to keep rubbing it in (really don't want Jerry Sandusky rubbing anything if I'm around)
Of course, nothing that was being discussed has anything to do with "the Confederacy." That was just you, mounting your miniature-sized intellectual hobbyhorse.
Whatever.
There is nothing interesting about the quote.
It's just one more crank complaining that conservatism ain't what it used to be, because conservatives aren't vigorously resisting all change, without reference to whether the proposed change is good or bad.
bernard, I thought it was interesting because it describes perfectly and to a T, much “conservatism” that we have today. I was surprised to see that this was written in 1897, since I thought it would have been about today. But what do I know. In particular, “What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism.” That happens today. “Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.” That is very true. I suppose you might say it’s unremarkable in that it applies to many politician types on all sides from ancient Rome through now. But that in itself is a worthwhile observation of human nature.
Your point though about indiscriminately resisting change for the sake of resisting change, whether good or bad, is a good one and well taken.
As usual, you are obsessed with attacking someone who said something while ignoring what was said. Rather boring and vacuous, but at least you try to make up for it with extra vulgarity and rage, which demonstrates an inkling of possible self-awareness. I'd note that your comment can be (and frequently is) equally applied to those who went to war with Britain.
I engaged with what was said, of course. I explained how it was nothing new, and how the Confederacy in general has little new or interesting to add to modernity.
You can get on your intellectual airs and claim it's the interesting content you're here for, man.
But we all know, ML. You don't even add any commentary about the content.
You don't hide it well.
I get it, "Sarcas-tro" because anyone wasting time worrying about the Confederacy would have to be "Sar-casm" of the highest level.
Why not something more topical, like the "XYZ affair"??
Frank "Judah Benjamin, how did he not make Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song" ??? OK, sort of tough to make a rhyme, "and Former Confederate States Secretary of State Judah Ben-ja-min....."
Right, same goes for the American founding. A lot of people I know basically figure the US Constitution, and its basic ideas such as decentralized self-government, separation of powers, enumerated federalism, etc, is just a lot of outmoded and outdated stuff. And they suppose it's time to move past that. Of course I tend to point out that actually, those ideas are the newest ones and the alternatives being proposed are just a reversion to ancient forms. But then, a big part of the rationale is usually that ideas are somehow rendered invalid by imperfection or general depravity of people of the time, with practices such as slavery. People resist acknowledging human nature and find it easier to condemn a form of something that no longer exists rather than recognize depravity of the day. But all of that is me engaging with your diversion, and you not engaging..
“Wannabe traitor” is engaging with what was said? Bitching about the Confederacy is engaging what was said?
You went all ad hominem on a guy who’s been dead for 150 years.
That’s nowhere near engaging with what was said.
And I’m not commenting on what was said. Just on your laughable misrepresentation of your response.
I can both engage with what was said note that ML sucks, bevis.
Well, yeah, M L was clearly talking treason.
I’ve already reported him to the FBI. Hopefully they can get private actors to take down all of his posts everywhere. Wouldn’t want guys like him being allowed to opine.
Well, that's an off-topic and utterly unsupported accusation, bevis.
I said ML sucks; I didn't say he isn't allowed to suck.
Wannabe traitors have the right to be the weeners they are.
The subtopic here is that you insist on calling someone a traitor and treasonous who, you know, isn’t. He quoted someone who died two centuries ago that you consider to be a traitor.
The words traitor and treason, along with racist and fascist and Nazi and communist are overused by our zealous partisans to the point that they’ve become meaningless.
I said wannabe traitor. He doesn’t have the balls.
You I guess haven’t paid attention to his regular pattern of Lost Cause bullshit, Lincoln hatred, and posting Confederate quotes as ‘interesting.’
You don’t often find myself calling people traitors. I know what I’m saying and doing.
You started with saying I didn't engage with the quote. I did.
You then said I was trying to silence him. I'm not.
Now you're saying I'm making the accusation groundlessly. I'm not - you are ignorant of the context.
You should quit saying wrong things to go after me. Makes you look like a real tool.
He was Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff! What do you consider him to be?
I looked up something about Robert Lewis Dabney too see if quoting him makes one a traitor (excuse me, wannabe traitor).
(Francis B. Simkins, “Robert Lewis Dabney, Southern Conservative,” The Georgia Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Winter 1964), pp. 393-407)
In Dungeons and Dragons terms, Dabney was a Lawful Evil Cleric. He was a white supremacist, seemed to be OK with slavery, and wasn’t all that enthusiastic about equality even among whites. In the course of his remarks, he managed to denounce New South ideology, Wall Street, and powerful corporations.
As to treason, he backed the Confederacy and rode with Stonewall, so if secession was illegal then he committed treason.
So citing him as an authority would be wrong. But it wouldn’t meet the definition of treason. Don’t take my word for it, look it up in the Constitution and see – there’s nothing in there about wrongthink. Nor is wrongthink about Lincoln treason, etc.
What kind of double-mindedness says that it’s treason but shouldn’t be punished? Incoherent. No wonder Bevis teased out the clear implications of your choice of terminology.
You have the First Amendment right to call for abrogating the First Amendment. Others have the right to say that’s wrong. Quoting the Rev. Dabney isn’t treason – it’s actually free speech.
It wouldn’t be treason to quote George Bernard Shaw (Holodomor denier), Ezra Pound (fascist traitor except for his mental condition), Jane Fonda, etc., bad as these people were.
What an unfortunate development that a wannabe commissar (I didn’t call you a commissar, mind you!) wants to describe speech in terms which clearly have repressive implications. First they came for the people who quoted ex-Confederates…
Wow, quite the discussion.
Sarcastro's fervent, emotive nationalism is almost cute. Less cute are the implications which Margrave clearly lays out.
You are all looking up far more information about Robert Lewis Dabney than I ever knew. Neat.
Margrave, I don't doubt your findings about Dabney. I guess it seems to me that, as an initial matter, the logical and informational content of a statement has nothing to do with who is saying it. Even a bad guy might say something accurate. After many posts Sarcastro finally offered a meager direct comment on the quote that it was "nothing new." If so then I would like to see a similar criticism of so-called American/Northern conservatism that predates this one. To be perfectly clear, I am not "citing him as an authority." Appreciate the rest of your comment.
I suppose I have a personal hangup about the era of the Civil War, and with the fact that people of a “conservative” disposition were willing to adopt the radical “positive good” concept of slavery. Stephens boasted that the Confederate Constitution departed from the U. S. Constitution in its recognition of white supremacy and the inferior position of black people.
So conservative types were snookered into embracing radicalism while ruining their “brand” among everyone except supporters of slavery, and doughfaces.
Which is why I’m not going to swallow every flavor of conservatism out there.
The specific passage by Rev. Dabney has some good points, but as we’ve seen, the quote is vulnerable to guilt-by-association because it was Dabney who said it.
I’d say that America is a liberal country, with even the conservatives being liberals. Our “postliberals” are eloquently making this point. I forget who said this (hopefully not Dabney), but the difference between progressives and conservatives in the USA is that conservatives go the speed limit and progressives drive recklessly and fast, but they’re both going in the same direction.
I'd say liberalism has some good ideas, but "what is new is not good; and what is good is not new."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/17/good-original/
I'll be patient while liberals thump their chests about how they invented rule of law, the dignity of the individual, etc. Good to have them on board for those things. But as American liberalism fragments and becomes more unstable, the proportion of bad ideas increases.
"I suppose I have a personal hangup about the era of the Civil War, and with the fact that people of a “conservative” disposition were willing to adopt the radical “positive good” concept of slavery. "
The modifier, "some" is your friend here, if you chose to accept the help.
Correction accepted - *some* people of a conservative disposition.
I first remember David French when he was parroting the lefty line on the Trayvon Martin case in service of his then boss Rich Lowry, and he followed that with all sorts of similarly motivated nonsense. The NYT clowns itself by giving him a job in the name of "balance".
Here's Michael Anton on French's advocacy of "reparations":
https://americanmind.org/salvo/david-french-and-the-conservative-case-for-hereditary-bloodguilt/
Michael Anton is not only a racist, and a lunatic (Flight 93 election), but also a liar. The actual David French essay does not advocate for reparations at all:
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/structural-racism-isnt-wokeness-its/
Haven't got an account; So, what DOES he advocate?
I mean, Michael Anton certainly has described the reaction to Libs of Tiktok precisely: "Thus a commonplace contretemps of our time runs according to the following script: some leftist condemns an entire demographic group, often including a wish that harm befall it; she receives loud applause from the Left and from the ambient culture; a non-leftist repeats what she said and is denounced."
That's Libs of Tiktok's whole gig, and boy, did they ever get denounced.
Michael Anton is a delusional right-wing bigot. Your kind of guy, Birther Brett Bellmore.
'So, what DOES he advocate?'
Think he might just be a massive liar.
‘That’s Libs of Tiktok’s whole gig’
Don’t forget the bomb threats!
A question for the right-wingers who assail French. When members of congress who share your politics demand bi-partisanship—or denounce absence of bi-partisanship—what do you make of that?
Really, the only member of Congress who I might describe that way would be Rand Paul. How often does he demand bipartisanship?
Well, once in a while. More than once in a while, here's a couple examples.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/sens-paul-boxer-introduce-bipartisan-%E2%80%9Cinvest-transportation-act%E2%80%9D
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-paul-sen-booker-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-promote-research-and-access-potential-life
"members of congress who share your politics"
Can't think of any - to be fair, I don't know what political principles they have other than keeping their jobs and pensions.
I'm against "bipartisanship" - taking the worst ideas of each side and putting them into law. I'm in favor of trans-partisanship (no pun intended), going beyond the punch-and-judy show to figure out what ideas are actually good, whether it fits partisan talking points or not.
Neither are conservative, they are "New England conservative". Big difference.
Who are these "median" voters you speak of?
In what ways is he quite conservative as compared to the median voter? Genuinely curious.
He loves drag queen story hour and child strippers.
Not that conservative.
Median? That is a sample of one, by definition. 🙂
You may be confusing Prof. Volokh for someone else.
Prof. Volokh is the John Eastman (un-American, Trump-hugging insurrectionist) fan.
Cheap shot? Prof. Volokh has used a vile racial slur more than 30 times -- at this blog alone -- during the most recent two-year period. Why would anyone describe referring to that ugly, vivid, disgusting record as a cheap shot?
More than 30 times. Anyone want to take a crack at trying to defend that?
New year, same old Queen.
He intended "New England" to signal somewhat educated, less bigoted, less superstitious, less delusional, and less disaffected.
Its more of an attitude, Murkowski is one too.
Substitute Rockefeller Republican.
Yeah, and that makes sense if you see support for Trump as a kind of cancer, which most conservatives don't.
Most conservatives look at Trump and see a flawed guy who did some good stuff that the establishment GOP were never willing to do. French looks at him and sees a monster worth handing power to the Democrats to purge the GOP of any taint.
French is an establishment conservative, and Trump's real sin, I think, was that he bypassed the establishment. The Democrats can only deny the GOP wins, Trump threatened the establishment with losing control over 'their' party.
I think that causes French to exaggerate how bad Trump actually was.
Your game. Answer the question. Where are these "median" voters?
Once again, the Rev. pretends not to know the difference between using a word and citing someone else's use of it.
What word was that?
It's been a gradually accumulating thing.
Queen almathea is going balls to the wall defending David French. He must be a real conservative!
The 100% contrarian positioning of both parties, and all their talking heads has, from the Fox side, assigned war mongerism to the Biden administration for having the silliness to get in the way of tanks rolling through Europe using the exact same arguments Hitler did — we must protect our ethnic nationals there.
This is their strong man lickspittle appearance, a must-adopt position, to try to deny Biden a victory in popularity.
Their lickspittle status first manifested a few years ago when they started, puzzlingly, bitching about “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
You know, sending billions in materiel to Ukraine, weaponry and logistical support for the house of Saud in their Yemeni adventure, telling the world we'll defend Taiwan in case of invasion by the PRC, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
They also have Gary Abernathy.
Only Will and Abernathy have anything sensible to say, and that only happens about once every three months.
Hewitt and Thiessen are really jokes.
More than 30 times. In two years.
That is not happenstance.
That is not high-minded scholarship.
And your attempt to defend it is not persuasive, except perhaps among bigoted clingers who get a thrill each time that red meat is tossed.
Whoever they are, let's hope the Republican Party remains defiantly ignorant of them.
Attempt to actually do something about illegal immigration. Republicans have wanted strict border enforcement since the days of Reagan. Why did they never get it until Trump?
Stop nominating squishes to the Supreme court. Republicans have had a majority on the Court since 1970. Why didn't Dobbs come 50 years ago?
The fact is, Trump was willing to give Republican voters action on topics where the GOP establishment had only given them words.
'Attempt to actually do something about illegal immigration'
Mostly he just highlighted how utterly unworkable conservative ideas about immigration are while wasting money on the performative wall and jacking up the cruelty with which incredibly poor people were treated. Those latter two elements really hit the mark for some people, though, no denying that.
What he highlighted was how little a President could do on the immigration front if Congress didn't have his back. He did what he could, and people could see that.
That's part of what the party establishment hated about him: His actually trying to do things they'd talk about but never do, forced them to visibly oppose him, clarifying things for the voters.
"...on the performative wall ..."
You mean the 700 plus miles of wall Democrats agreed to as part of the "Reagan amnesty" that somehow never got built?
It's the event that made it a widespread thing.
I certainly wouldn't say it started with that. "National Review conservatism" has been a thing for decades, and French just took it to the next step.
It's almost like there's more to being a political leader than throwing worshipful rallies. You have to be able to get things done, which means working with other politicians who were also elected with their own democratic mandates, though it certainly helps if the things you're trying to get done aren't completely fucking stupid. Anybody who thinks immigration reform starts with 'just building a wall' is profoundly unserious. You could see him groping around for a similarly big and stupid idea for healthcare but thank God one never materialised.
Jesus have you memory-holed Trump's wall already? Wow.
I see a certain former Penn State Coach isn't handling the Big 10 ( they can't even count) pulling an AlGore in the CFB Playoff to well.
She's what Senator Blutarski would have looked like if he'd "Transitioned"
False. Most conservatives do. Most Republicans don't.
In the same way that Trump was an "anti-Hillary" proxy?
Abernathy has had a lesser journalism career than many editors of strong college newspapers. His "insights" are weak; his inclinations are shabby; his prose is what one would expect from a lifelong small-ponder.
No ordinary voter would completely ruin their life and go to prison for Biden or Clinton the way so many in the Jan 6th mob did. Heck, nobody in their campaigns or administration would go to jail or get indicted for them. Or need to.
I don't follow closely enough to make that case. My impression is just that he's one of those toolbags who only ever punches right, and never actually held any "conservative" principles whatsoever other than presumably some fake conservative neocon warmongering and corporate boot-licking.
But the first claim that was made here is in the OP and it is that he is "quite conservative." Some have questioned that claim, and you offered that the standard for judging this claim should be "compared to the median voter." I'm not just arguing, I am genuinely curious in what ways he is "quite conservative," whether "compared to the median voter" or otherwise.
lmao good one Blue-Anon
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/sick-never-trumper-david-french-calls-drag-queen-story-hour-a-blessing-of-liberty/
Down South we don't consider anything short of the Playoff worth watching.
"Christian"
Such as?
In ordinary times merely "Trespassing" on "The People's House" wouldn't get you anything other than a nasty look from a Capitol Police (the Capitol Steps are more intimidating). Only dude who murdered anyone January 6 is still free.
The people who did something illegal in DC on January 6th were a tiny fraction of the people attending the Trump rally, and many of them DIDN'T attend it, having come for the break in, not the rally. I'll agree the were not ordinary voters. They weren't ordinary Trump voters, either.
And I don't think the people going around firebombing pro-life centers are ordinary Biden voters.
Yeah, if you define conservatives in terms of hating Trump, which is pretty unreasonable, and reduces the number of 'conservative' Republicans to a vanishingly tiny minority.
French has been quite explicit that he values liberty, because the same freedom of expression that allows DQSH allows religious groups access to these public spaces as well.
But remember, BCD is proud of being a neo-Nazi, so it's not surprising that he would post that "rebuttal," which consists of little more than saying the word "pedophile" over and over again like a small child who just learned a four-letter word.
If a government won't protect a child from LGBTQ groomers, then what good is it?
Having sex with small children are only "blessings of liberty" to you sick perverts.
No you're reduced to defining conservatism by where a person stands on Trump instead of centuries of intellectual and political development and governance.
Nobody ever firebombed a pro-life clinic for Biden, no more than anyone ever murdered a doctor for Bush. But those guys did what they did for Trump. That guy attacked the FBI office after Mar A Lago for Trump.
You talking about the FBI agents?
That you sit around all day thinking about having sex with children makes you the pervert. Nobody else is talking about sex at all, let alone sex with children.
Ron DeSantis’ Florida is an actual child sex trafficking hub, why are you only getting shriller with your homophobic smears instead?
Kafkatrap with a pinch of projection. You are discussing a subject that involves exposing pre-pubescent children to issues of sexuality. He just took it a step further and linked it to the shifting of the overton window regarding pedophilia.
I would like to believe you're intellectually honest enough to understand the connection. Feel free to disagree with it, but stop pretending that the sexualization of children is unrelated to the subject matter.
Wanting pedophiles to be able to use the state to better access underage victims makes you a pedophile, Mr. Nieporent.
No, we’re not. We’re talking about public events at which men dress as women and read stories out loud. Not my cup of tea, but no sex is involved in any way.
It's not even about the sexualization of the drag queen — a ten year old does not see a drag queen and start contemplating the drag queen’s sex life — let alone the sexualization of children.
Just watch some of the videos of these degenerate Democrat kiddie shows.
Don’t act stupid like it’s just some ugly man in a dress telling stories to kids.
Not "telling" stories to kids; reading them to kids. We're not talking about "shows." We're talking about Drag Queen Story Hour. It's an event held at a public library. Reading, nothing more.
You wish that’s all it was. If it was only about drag queens reading to kids with no relation to drag, they wouldn’t dress up in drag.
This is the difference between pride parades where grown men in BDSM gear walk each other like dogs and deepthroat dildos in the presence of children and pride parades where ordinary, well adjusted people celebrate diversity and inclusion.
You ARE allowed to differentiate between the two and it’s the bigotry of low expectations that prevents you from criticizing the former while defending the latter.
'If it was only about drag queens reading to kids with no relation to drag, they wouldn’t dress up in drag.'
Just roll that one round your brain for a while.
You know drag queens don't dress in drag 24/7 right?
This, x1000 or so. This is about normalizing drag queens to children still young enough to unquestioningly trust the reality modeled by the adults around them. The story reading is naught more than a thinly-veiled excuse to get in front of large groups of them in costume.
I mean, yes, that's true, except that it's not a thinly-veiled excuse; it's an open and acknowledged motive. But it has nothing to do with sex.
Keep saying it over and over again with feeling, and maybe you'll come to believe it enough to make yourself feel better.
The rest of us need not get into hopeful mind-reading exercises, and can simply rely on our lying eyes,
OK, what about Neo-Nazi Story Hour?
I'd be opposed to that as well -- same reason, the children.
You see people having sex in that picture?
'I’d be opposed to that as well'
Have a lollipop.
Oh, so anything goes as long as you don't actually penetrate the little darlings? That's pretty sick.
Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
Consider whatever cutesy irrelevant point you're desperately trying to make, made.
Now get back to explaining to the class how the drag queen "cuddling" depicted in the pictures has no -- none -- zero -- sexual connotations whatsoever.
Because that's the bar you set, bucko.
Things considered worth watching in the South:
1) Rattlesnake-juggling exhibitions
2) 'Rasslin' matches
3) Weddings involving first cousins
4) Dogfights and cockfights
5) Pickup truck races
6) Confederate statues
7) Segregated proms and schools
8) Weddings involving 14- and 15-year-olds
9) Museum displays celebrating the Confederacy
10) Lectures excoriating evolution, science, and reason
You know, Arthur, I lived in the South for many years.
I dislike its politics, and there are a lot of things about its culture I don't care for as well, not least the huge importance of religion. (Even worse, as a Vanderbilt guy, I don't much care for college football either.)
But let's be fair. The southern contribution to American culture, particularly music and literature, is quite large, and worthy of respect. There are yahoos everywhere.
The south is still a stain and drain on our nation.
Check the ranking of "states by educational attainment."
Check the roster of Confederate monuments.
Check the number of unreconstructed bigots (of various flavors, all disgusting).
Check the locations of our strongest teaching and research institutions, medical facilities, and cultural amenities.
Check the list of states ranked by educational quality.
Trying to defend the American South is a foolish endeavor. Had the decent and patriotic citizens operating in the immediate wake of the Civil War been able to foresee the degree to which southern states would remain an ignorant, bigoted, parasitic drag on our nation for more than 150 years, would they have arranged resumption of statehood for the war's losers, traitors, and bigots? It is worthwhile to consider whether America would have been better with a string of unincorporated territories along the southern border of the United States. Offering the prospect of statehood might have inclined Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, and the others to improve (and at a better pace).
Peoples used to get worked up when the FBI trampled on the bill of rights or Federale's murdered unarmed Civilians.
Don't fucking accuse people of being pedophiles. What the fuck is wrong with you?
You are calling all drag queens pedophiles as well, I guess?
Actually, it wouldn't. That's not what the word means.
Also, nobody except you is talking about pedophiles, access, or victims.
"fake conservative neocon warmongering"
While I don't know what his unit was in the middle of, his time in the sandbox changed him.
Why, it's almost like my statements make less sense if you only quote a piece of them. Strange, that.
Are you suggesting that National Review is not a conservative publication?
He is, but he's a lunatic. His view is that Republican = conservative, unless of course the Republican isn't conservative enough in which case the Republican is a RINO, or unless the conservative doesn't support Republicans, in which the conservative isn't really a conservative at all.
It's true that the phrase "National Review conservatism" exists, but it means the opposite of what Brett means by it.
No, National Review IS a conservative publication. It's just a species of conservatism which is distinct from mainstream conservatism, at this point. Limbaugh used to call it "cruise ship conservatism".