RobLong.jpg

Not All Trends Are the Lefties’ Friends: An Open Letter to Rob Long

Rob, buddy, I love ya

. . . but . . .

I’m getting tired of hearing you on the podcast reminding us that Americans just elected the most pro-choice president ever. Your implication–that America has turned from conservatism–is unpersuasive.

First, there’s the annoying sleight of hand that occurs when lefties, and their RINO co-belligerents, “helpfully” urge the GOP to abandon traditional marriage and the pro-life cause. The former looks to be a loser, yes; the latter, most definitely not. Lo…

  1. DocJay
    BrentB67: Pro Choice isn’t the same as pro abortion and often the vote isn’t for abortion as it is people being scared into worrying about the federal government restricting abortions or other personal choice. I don’t think democrats are swaying people by saying they are pro abortion. Democrats are reaching low information voters by saying that abortion is just the first domino in republicans efforts to ‘put y’all back in chains….’.

     If all they can come up with is ‘you gotta elect us or Obama and Reid are gonna still be in power’ then look forward to the Senate remaining Harry Reid’s playground. · 0 minutes ago

    Your last sentence makes me happy regarding the usually dim topic of severe age related illnesses.  

    Pro-choice is definitely not the same as Pro-abortion, nor is Pro-life a pure side either.  Obviously within our ranks here we have no birth control of any kind, no BCP’s, no IUD’s, No abortions after heartbeat, none after 12 weeks, none after 20 weeks, none after the child is viable outside the womb, no real late term babies, and free and legal all the time until birth.  

  2. BrentB67
    DocJay: I’ll set aside my emotions on abortion to say that North Dakota’s new laws are likely going to be quite useful for the democrat demonization of the GOP and itswar on women.   

    Win locally and lose nationally will bring us HRC in 2016. · 53 minutes ago

    I think that is the Cliff Notes version. 

    If the republican party was smart (I should probably stop typing right now) they could play up the federalism aspect and defend North Dakota and Arkansas right to determine how their states will handle the question.

  3. Gary The Ex-Donk
    Douglas

    Americans, to put it bluntly, need to be smacked in the face with the reality of their choices. They’re going to have to learn the hard way what happens when you elect liberals and surrender the culture. We have to tell them “Hey, this is what happens”.

    With regard to SSM, what – exactly – do you anticipate will happen that will smack Americans who support it in the face with the reality of that choice?

    I mean to say, what will happen that actually will matter to them?

    This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a serious question.  I’m looking for a serious answer.

  4. Jim  Ixtian
    Gary The Ex-Donk With regard to SSM, what – exactly – do you anticipate will happen that will smack Americans who support it in the face with the reality of that choice?

    This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a serious question.  I’m looking for a serious answer.

    Americans will stop prioritizing frivolous issues like Homosex marriage( & pot, environment fundamentalism, libertine-ism, and Libertarianism) when the US economy collapses. Some believe our trillion dollar annual deficits won’t have any effect for 5-10 years. Others believe that there is a great reckoning coming soon for our financial(and moral) profligacy. IMHO, I happen to believe we are on the precipice of a debt crisis with other trends working against the US(student debt crisis, demographic winter, Asian decoupling, etc.) which will make the collapse of the Soviet Union seem like a mere teapot tempest. Remember how bad things got in post-Soviet Russia and imagine the same process here. Note how someone like Putin rose in an environment like that.

    Starvation, poverty, and anarchy focus the mind like nothing else.

    That is why I’m quite optimistic Americans will change their thinking.

  5. DocJay

    Jim Ixtian, that’s why I’m a mini prepper with some nice friends.

  6. Douglas
    Gary The Ex-Donk

    With regard to SSM, what – exactly – do you anticipate will happen that will smack Americans who support it in the face with the reality of that choice?

    I mean to say, what will happen that actually willmatterto them?

    This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a serious question.  I’m looking for a serious answer. · 3 hours ago

    As a starting place, I’d use harsh, honest, direct language and point to the divorce rate and bastardy rate… I’m tired of using weasel words like “out of wedlock births”… and make the argument straight up: this is what you get when you change the legal standards that are undergirded by social standards. 

    As I said earlier, none of it may make a difference. I think a people can get to a point of no return. Jim Ixtian brought up the old economic crisis idea about forcing us to “get real” about what’s important and what’s not. I’m not sure that’s true, though. In 2010, we rebelled against big government, but re-elected it in 2012. And in the depression, we quite eagerly surrendered our freedom to the New Deal.

  7. Duane Oyen
    DocJay: James of England, I can assure you that in 50 years there is no way we will spend the 500,000 to a 1,000,000 on a preemie. Diminishing resources will be the normal soon enough and the entitlement state will keep voting until it’s too late. The future will be filled with dead preemies and our dead morality with it. The fact that so many babies of those will be from impoverished crack addicted moms with babies who will never ride the big bus to school shall help the bean counters morally justify the relative lack of medical care. I have seen the future and it is not pretty. I have met the enemy and he is us. ……………….

    No, but there is a very real probability that we will give decent care to a preemie.  The economics of the system will change drastically when the means of providing care change drastically (which they will, by Stein’s Law) and the current anti-competitive trusts are busted, which they inevitably will be.

  8. EThompson
    Fredösphere

    Obama won because he’s articulate, disciplined, and the country really, really wanted to elect a black man as president. They remain completely unpersuaded by anything he says.

    Mitch Daniels most astutely remarked on the 2008 election: “Quite honestly, it was a fashion statement vote for some people.” (I would only disagree with the term some.)

    With that said, I don’t comprehend your remark: 

    We all need to stop writing off the U.S. electorate as a hopeless mess right now. ??

  9. Rob Long
    C

    I guess I need to finish the thought.  I’m not persuaded by “polls” or excuses or relying on Obama’s magic to explain away the past two general elections.

    What I think we need to do is become a majority party.  When the Dems were a majority party — roughly from 1964 to 1994 — they accomplished a lot.  They managed to hold together a coalition of conservative Dems and crazy left wing Dems and radically changed what Americans expect and demand from their government.

    Were they right?  No.  Were they effective?  Yes.

    So history suggests that a majority party that appeals to a broad and fractious coalition is actually more effective at getting stuff done — even stuff that members of that party disagreed with – than a party that’s narrowly specific.  And the way I read the past 2 national elections, that’s our challenge.

  10. DocJay

    I know you’re waiting for this one moment in time to feel fully justified Rob so here it comes. I could not agree more. The GOP needs to embrace libertarians, SoCons, squish Rinos and everyone who wants to defeat progressivism. Obama has created his own massive machine, somewhat apart of the democrat machine and the rift will form soon. If we charge in to the breech divided then something awful will win again, stack the scotus, and make us serfs. Damn us all if we let that happen.

  11. James Of England
    Rob_Long: I guess I need to finish the thought.  I’m not persuaded by “polls” or excuses or relying on Obama’s magic to explain away the past two general elections.

    …….

    So history suggests that a majority party that appeals to a broad and fractious coalition is actually more effective at getting stuff done….. And the way I read the past 2 national elections, that’s our challenge. · 

    Both the party that got 51% of the vote and the party that got 47% of the vote are broad and fractious coalitions. The GOP this time was much, much more fractious, but every metric I’m aware of says that we won on the issues (“shares my values” “has a clear vision” etc.) and lost on class warfare and other forms of tribalism. In the states, the GOP is the majority party. In Congress, it’s a wash.

    You say that you’re not interested in “excuses” or polls, but you still offer advice. I don’t see the epistemic difference between your diagnostics about what went wrong and the “excuses” that others use, between your evidence and the evidence of others. “Excuses” sounds like a content-free delegitimizing ad hominem.

  12. DocJay

    Duane, you assume food, water and safety in your model. I can extrapolate the economic destruction of the medicine monopolies which drive costs, sometime after nationalized health care. In that future, care is less expensive.

  13. James Of England

    It’s also helpful to remember that the parties were not in a static world. At the start of the last century , the US had fairly similar healthcare, pension, gun, tax, and environmental laws to the rest of the Anglosphere. Today, it’s uniquely free in those respects, even with Obamacare. It was already more free in speech and commerce, and those differences have expanded.

    A lot of the changes are a matter of material changes; the breakdown of the family in fishtown is partly a matter of law, but also partly a matter of cultural and material shifts entirely outside the realm of law.

    The fact that the welfare state is massively more generous today than it was in Hoover’s “chicken in every pot” era is partly because of political advances, and partly because Americans are absurdly wealthier and more productive. We can have conversations about Medicaid spending $100k on a premature infant when the equivalent ($7800 in 1928) would have been incomprehensible.

    The countries whose conservative parties took the Rob Long advice have moved towards progressivism faster than the one that didn’t. I don’t think this is dispositive, but it does imply some GOP success.

  14. Z in MT

    A serious question we on the center right have to answer is: Is the GOP brand broken? or are conservativelibertarian values now a minority position?

    This question has only become relevant recently because of the complete ideological sorting of the two parties.

    The answer to this question is important because it demands different responses. 

    If the former, there are two choices: scrap the Republican brand and form a new party, or focus solely on messaging to attract people in the middle and put an end to scaring away easily swayed low information voters.

    If the latter ,than messaging won’t work, and trying to shift GOP policy positions to attract new voters will only end up causing the current coalition to break up.  In either case the center right will be unable to form a majority, and any real changes would have to come through events and changes beyond the control any coalition or group.

  15. Z in MT

    James,

    It is interesting to look at Canada, Australia, and NZ.  All three probably have more economic freedom (as measured in regulatory burden) and more efficient government than the US.  However, the US is still definitely more free in terms of speech, health, guns, and family issues.   

  16. Z in MT

    As for England, it has decided to take the worst from all. 

    It will be interesting to see what happens in England with the downfall of the Tories.  There are four viable parties in England now, however the political system like that in the US is more favorable to two parties, so it will be interesting to see what new coalitions and parties shakes out.

  17. DocJay

    James of England, I can assure you that in 50 years there is no way we will spend the 500,000 to a 1,000,000 on a preemie. Diminishing resources will be the normal soon enough and the entitlement state will keep voting until it’s too late. The future will be filled with dead preemies and our dead morality with it. The fact that so many babies of those will be from impoverished crack addicted moms with babies who will never ride the big bus to school shall help the bean counters morally justify the relative lack of medical care. I have seen the future and it is not pretty. I have met the enemy and he is us. Time marches on and the issues we debate here will seem idle tea chatter compared to a filled belly, drinking water , and a few cartridges for the next unwelcome visitors.

  18. Fredösphere

    Please read my comments on the related Main Feed thread for a couple of important addenda I wrote regarding Rob personally.

  19. Gary The Ex-Donk
    Jim Ixtian

    Gary The Ex-Donk With regard to SSM, what – exactly – do you anticipate will happen that will smack Americans who support it in the face with the reality of that choice?

    This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a serious question.  I’m looking for a serious answer.

    Americans will stop prioritizing frivolous issues like Homosex marriage( & pot, environment fundamentalism, libertine-ism, and Libertarianism) when the US economy collapses.

    Starvation, poverty, and anarchy focus the mind like nothing else.

    I’m not sure which Americans you are referring to as regards prioritizing frivilous issues.  Do you mean the opponents or the proponents? 

    Because, at least as it relates to SSM, most of those who are in favor feel that way because they don’t consider it to be a problem – at least not a problem that takes precedence over economic issues.

  20. Gary The Ex-Donk
    Douglas

    Gary The Ex-Donk

    With regard to SSM, what – exactly – do you anticipate will happen that will smack Americans who support it in the face with the reality of that choice?

    I mean to say, what will happen that actually willmatterto them?

    This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a serious question.  I’m looking for a serious answer. · 3 hours ago

    As a starting place, I’d use harsh, honest, direct language and point to the divorce rate and bastardy rate… I’m tired of using weasel words like “out of wedlock births”… and make the argument straight up: this is what you get when you change the legal standards that are undergirded by social standards. 

    You’re assuming that those who currently support SSM would agree that there is an actual connection between that issue and the problems you outline above.  The divorce and “bastardy” rates have more to do with the state of traditional marriage. 

    I don’t know what the frequency of same sex married couples producing bastards is but I’m guessing it’s pretty negligible.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In