For the ‘Modern Family’ Generation, the Culture War Is About Liberty – Not Culture

 

I can’t work out what the culture war means for this election. All this week, I’ve been exploring alternative points of view. As I wrote in the Telegraph, I’m sure it will motivate the conservative base and give Obama trouble. As I wrote for CNN, I suspect most independents and younger Americans will just ignore it. Yesterday forced another rethink. A poll out on Thursday showed that half of Americans oppose the President’s plans to compel Catholic organizations to provide contraception as part of their employees’ health insurance. So does the culture war matter or not?

I think it does, but not in the way that the pundits traditionally think about it. The 2012 culture war isn’t really about culture. It’s about liberty. Culture just happens to be the way that it’s expressed. This is only way of reconciling the paradox that while Americans broadly disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception (which polls suggest that they do by large amounts) they also disagree with Obama’s reforms.

On the one hand, the public’s attitude towards moral and social issues has demonstrably mellowed. Take gay rights. In 1992, 48 percent of Americans thought sexual relations between people of the same gender should be legal. Now it’s 62 percent and, for the first time, a majority of Americans also support same-sex marriage. It’s surely significant that a 2010 poll found that the favorite TV show of Republican voters is Modern Family, which features a gay couple raising a Vietnamese adopted daughter. I would argue that those born after 1975 are part of the Modern Family generation – people who still favor family, stability, self-reliance etc, but who don’t feel that it has to be defined by traditional gender/sexual roles. Whether or not they are right is beside the point: they grew up in a culture that encouraged diversity and doesn’t see alternative lifestyles as a threat.

But that concern for liberty cuts both ways. For, on the other hand, the Modern Family generation doesn’t like it when anyone tries to impose their values on anyone else. That’s what Obama and the Left don’t get about the uproar that accompanied the contraception mandate. One foolish White House aide was heard to remark, “Who are we going to really lose over this? … Catholics who don’t believe in condoms aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let’s get real.” But this isn’t a lifestyle issue – it’s a freedom of conscience issue. Millions of voters aren’t angry at Obama’s support or even promotion of contraception. They are angry at the fact that he tried to compel the Catholic Church to provide it.

That distinction seems to be concomitant with the Tea Party’s ethos. A lot has been written about how the Tea Party is an incubator for religious conservatives – and I am sure this is true. But the movement’s overwhelming opposition to the mandate doesn’t contradict its overall message of liberty, or its earlier insistence that it is uninterested in social issues. That’s because the mandate is a big government issue, yet another example of the federal government going beyond its remit and trying to regulate the very most intimate parts of our lives.

On balance, I’m leaning towards the view that the contraception mandate will be electorally damaging to Obama because it confirms the voters’ impression that he is an arrogant bureaucrat with a penchant for European-style social democracy. That’s why it’s so hard to track precisely the electoral effect of the culture war – for its impact is felt on a largely instinctively level.

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 31 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    In Daniel Hannan’s speech to CPAC, he described the disappointment for him, a lonely conservative in Europe, watching Europe headed for the economic cliff, trying to apply the emergency brakes for Europe and the UK at the last minute, and then, turning around to see America blindly following Europe over the same cliff. It’s a sad development, and so unnecessary.

    • #1
    • February 17, 2012 at 7:34 am
  2. Profile photo of katievs Inactive

    Good analysis, Timothy.

    • #2
    • February 17, 2012 at 7:49 am
  3. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” —Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • #3
    • February 17, 2012 at 8:00 am
  4. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive

    We libertarian-conservatives have been making this same argument for a long, long time. All we usually garner is ridicule from conservatives.

    (Which shows the importance of rhetoric, I suppose. Who says is more important than what is said.)

    The fatal conceit, the pretense of knowing more than one can – it afflicts Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Libertarian-conservatives and Tea Party members know this all too well. The Noble Lies spun by statists, and their academic enablers in both parties, aren’t working any longer. Even in the conservative movement, our self-appointed intellectual emperors have no clothes.

    You’re right, the crucial issue is liberty. And Liberty lives only where government power is strictly limited. But the Republican Party is not a bastion of limited government politicians.

    Free peoples mostly settle into traditional family, social, and cultural arrangements – because they work. Traditions arise not because they are imposed by Straussian or Progressive overlords but because traditional practices achieve a generally good outcome for people.

    In society, culture, and economics, Obama and the Democratic Party want to engineer what only emerges spontaneously. Sadly, neoconservatives also want to engineer society, culture and economics. They just choose a different design.

    • #4
    • February 17, 2012 at 8:14 am
  5. Profile photo of starnescl Member

    You’re right. However, unfortunately liberty is a word that won’t have purchase with post 75’ers or independents. It resonates with us, not them.

    The word that will work is choice, and the sentiment that will work is that Obama won’t listen. It will resonate with their developed sense of fairness.

    Obama is robbing us of choice. Obama won’t listen. 

    Have a legitimate issue with constitutionally protected religious freedoms? Too bad. You lose your choice, and Obama won’t listen.

    He will rob you of your choice once cost considerations dictate that the IPAB eliminates drugs, procedures, etc. to reduce costs.

    For instance – worried women’s health is put in jeopardy by denying Avastin for breast cancer treatment or denying mammogram screening for those under 40? To bad. You lose your choice. Cost-containment trumps women’s health issues, and he won’t listen to your pleadings.

    We don’t need to preach to the choir; We need to implore the non-ideological and the independents that their ox will be gored, they will be robbed of their choice, and Obama will not care what you have to say about it.

    • #5
    • February 17, 2012 at 8:53 am
  6. Profile photo of raycon and lindacon Member

    ““Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    It isn’t all about liberty, it is whether we are a people who can so govern ourselves that we will allow no government to govern our lives. And that self-government comes from being a Godly, moral and religious, people.

    Seeking the benefits that flow from the Constitution but being unwilling to place the controls upon ourselves will fail.

    It isn’t about liberty, it is about accountability. To God, to ourselves, and to others. 

    Sorry, no free rides.

    • #6
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:01 am
  7. Profile photo of Robert Lux Member

    “Values” . . . “lifestyle” . . . Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind waxed rather brilliantly about how these very words reveal our growing slavishness. 

    I suppose I could write a whole post, from a tyrannical “Straussian” perspective (we also have secret, retractable fangs), about why it’s no coincidence that the best a “Modern Family” generation can muster in Britain is a David Cameron who cannot turn back the welfare state. It’s sad that conservatives cannot see that “gay” marriage is intrinsic to the very logic of the welfare state: i.e., individuality run amok, with all the dire consequences as Tocqueville predicted. 

    If people have “mellowed” to SSM — and this is the way things should be and an outcome that is to be defended — then there really is something to the Leftist (and libertarian) critique that opposition to the domestication of the “gay” “lifestyle” is equal to promotion of miscegenation laws. 

    The Left understood long, long ago that the first place to begin in prosecuting their tyrannical, nanny state agenda was to soften up the culture. When I read posts like Timothy Stanley’s one can only feel exasperation as it’s clear the Left really has won. 

    • #7
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:14 am
  8. Profile photo of Ansonia Member

    You’re right, Mr Stanley. I don’t believe using birth control is wrong. But I don’t want my government to have the power to force a church to enable a behavior that goes against the church’s teachings.

    • #8
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:27 am
  9. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Robert Lux: “Values” . . . “lifestyle” . . . Allan Bloom’sClosing of the American Mind waxed rather brilliantly about how these very words reveal our growing slavishness. 

    I suppose I could write a whole post, from a tyrannical “Straussian” perspective (we also have secret, retractable fangs), about why it’s no coincidence that the best a “Modern Family” generation can muster in Britain is a David Cameron who cannot turn back the welfare state. It’s sad that conservatives cannot see that “gay” marriage is intrinsic to the very logic of the welfare state: i.e., individuality run amok, with all the dire consequences as Tocqueville predicted. 

    The Left understood long, long ago that the first place to begin in prosecuting their tyrannical, nanny state agenda was to soften up the culture. When I read posts like Timothy Stanley’s one can only feel exasperation as it’s clear the Left really has won. · 30 minutes ago

    Perfectly put, and just how I feel, too. Apart from economics and constitutional reasoning, libertarians are children of the 60’s. Unfortunately, many conservatives have also accepted the left’s premises about good and bad (including, but hardly limited to, considering sexual license a natural right).

    • #9
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:50 am
  10. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive
    Charles Starnes: We don’t need to preach to the choir; We need to implore the non-ideological and the independents that their ox will be gored, they will be robbed of their choice, and Obama will not care what you have to say about it. · 5 minutes ago

    Edited 2 minutes ago

    That is one of the most intelligent comments I’ve read on Ricochet.

    Let’s explore why we preach to the choir. We’re a fractured party. Republicans are not all liberty-minded. Most elected Republicans do not practice limited government. The ugly truth is that we’re still trying to convince our own that liberty is good policy.

    • #10
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:54 am
  11. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Jeff Younger
    Charles Starnes: We don’t need to preach to the choir; We need to implore the non-ideological and the independents that their ox will be gored, they will be robbed of their choice, and Obama will not care what you have to say about it. · 5 minutes ago

    Edited 2 minutes ago

    That is one of the most intelligent comments I’ve read on Ricochet.

    Let’s explore why we preach to the choir. We’re a fractured party. Republicans are not all liberty-minded. Most elected Republicans do not practice limited government. The ugly truth is that we’re still trying to convince our own that liberty is good policy. · 2 minutes ago

    Fair enough, but local government was never supposed to be as limited as the federal government, and libertarians like to insist on limiting all government just as much. Certain of our institutions need support in the law – not in the federal law, but in local law (and sometimes state law).

    • #11
    • February 17, 2012 at 9:58 am
  12. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive
    Robert Lux: I suppose I could write a whole post, from a tyrannical “Straussian” perspective (we also have secret, retractable fangs), […] It’s sad that conservatives cannot see that “gay” marriage is intrinsic to the very logic of the welfare state: i.e., individuality run amok, with all the dire consequences as Tocqueville predicted. 

    If people have “mellowed” to SSM — and this is the way things should be and an outcome that is to be defended — then there reallyis something to the Leftist (and libertarian) critique that opposition to the domestication of the “gay” “lifestyle” is equal to promotion of miscegenation laws. 

    Libertarians have diverse views on gay marriage. Ron Paul for example, opposes government sanction of gay marriage, opposes government redefinition of marriage from one man and one woman. Paul Rahe said Mr. Paul was homophobic for that position.

    The one thing that unites libertarians is this: society should be free to develop free of the government.

    Neoconservatives and Straussians don’t believe that.

    And you’ve misread Tocqueville. How can collectivist government policies aimed at destroying the traditional family be called “individualism”? It’s a typical Straussian bait-and-switch.

    • #12
    • February 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
  13. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive
    Leporello Fair enough, but local government was never supposed to be as limited as the federal government, and libertarians like to insist on limiting all government just as much. Certain of our institutions need support in the law – not in the federal law, but in local law (and sometimes state law). · 60 minutes ago

    Agreed. At the state and local level, the people themselves are the best check on the government.

    • #13
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:01 am
  14. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Jeff Younger
    Leporello Fair enough, but local government was never supposed to be as limited as the federal government, and libertarians like to insist on limiting all government just as much. Certain of our institutions need support in the law – not in the federal law, but in local law (and sometimes state law). · 60 minutes ago

    Agreed. At the state and local level, the people themselves are the best check on the government. · 3 minutes ago

    Oh, well, glad to hear it. Do you consider yourself, then, an old-time “Federalist” like Madison, or more of an “Anti-Federalist” like Mason? Would you rather have a Swiss-like confederacy of cantons, or a pre-Wilson/TR American government?

    • #14
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:10 am
  15. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Jeff Younger
    Robert Lux: I suppose I could write a whole post, from a tyrannical “Straussian” perspective (we also have secret, retractable fangs), […] It’s sad that conservatives cannot see that “gay” marriage is intrinsic to the very logic of the welfare state: i.e., individuality run amok, with all the dire consequences as Tocqueville predicted. 

    If people have “mellowed” to SSM — and this is the way things should be and an outcome that is to be defended — then there reallyis something to the Leftist (and libertarian) critique that opposition to the domestication of the “gay” “lifestyle” is equal to promotion of miscegenation laws. 

    Neoconservatives and Straussians don’t believe that.

    And you’ve misread Tocqueville. How can collectivist government policies aimed at destroying the traditional family be called “individualism”? It’s a typical Straussian bait-and-switch. · 12 minutes ago

    Sincere questions: Have you read anything by Leo Strauss? If so, was it more than a few essays? And are you aware that a large number of students and admirers of Leo Strauss are skeptical of or simply opposed to neoconservative foreign policy?

    • #15
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:13 am
  16. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive
    Leporello Sincere questions: Have you read anything by Leo Strauss? If so, was it more than a few essays? And are you aware that a large number of students and admirers of Leo Strauss are skeptical of or simply opposed to neoconservative foreign policy? · 1 minute ago

    When I wrote “Neoconservatives and Straussians” I didn’t mean to imply identity but distinction.

    They both distrust the development of society free of government control, even as they disagree on other matters, particualrly on the aims of government.

    • #16
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:21 am
  17. Profile photo of Jeff Y Inactive
    Leporello Oh, well, glad to hear it. Do you consider yourself, then, an old-time “Federalist” like Madison, or more of an “Anti-Federalist” like Mason? Would you rather have a Swiss-like confederacy of cantons, or a pre-Wilson/TR American government?

    I’m more Jeffersonian. A pre-Wilson/TR government appeals strongly to me.

    • #17
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:27 am
  18. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Jeff Younger
    Leporello Oh, well, glad to hear it. Do you consider yourself, then, an old-time “Federalist” like Madison, or more of an “Anti-Federalist” like Mason? Would you rather have a Swiss-like confederacy of cantons, or a pre-Wilson/TR American government?

    I’m more Jeffersonian. A pre-Wilson/TR government appeals strongly to me. · 10 minutes ago

    Ha! Splitting the difference, I see, by choosing Jefferson. Well, I’ve grown more sympathetic to that view as I’ve become more aware of the oppression of Progressive statism, whose underlying principles many Republicans have embraced, as you pointed out.

    • #18
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:39 am
  19. Profile photo of Leporello Inactive
    Jeff Younger
    Leporello Sincere questions: Have you read anything by Leo Strauss? If so, was it more than a few essays? And are you aware that a large number of students and admirers of Leo Strauss are skeptical of or simply opposed to neoconservative foreign policy? · 1 minute ago

    When I wrote “Neoconservatives and Straussians” I didn’t mean to imply identity but distinction.

    They both distrust the development of society free of government control, even as they disagree on other matters, particualrly on the aims of government. · 18 minutes ago

    I agree Straussians are not the same as neoconservatives. I disagree, however, that there is much one can say about the political views of Straussians as a group. In general, the only thing I could confidently say about them altogether is that they believe in reading the works of great minds and trying to understand them as they understood themselves. Leo Strauss never taught a particular political program, unless you want to argue that merely insisting on the continuing relevance of thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, and Machiavelli constitutes a political program.

    • #19
    • February 17, 2012 at 11:46 am
  20. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    Many words expended thus far, but not a great deal of them on anything useful.

    Folks here like to bag on libertarians for some reason. It’s as if they think we’re to blame for all that is wrong with the country and the culture.

    News Flash! As you’re so fond of reminding us, we’re a very small group with very little influence in the halls of power. Ergo, we are by definition not at fault for what has happened in the culture at large.

    I also disagree greatly with the assertion that without God, we’re all heathens who’ll shag anything that’s warm.

    Libertarianism for me boils down to this simple desire: I want to be left alone.

    I don’t need govt to tell me what to eat, I don’t need a church to tell me not to kill people or drop-kick babies, and I don’t need village of nosy frumps to tell me how to raise my (hypothetical) children.

    All I want from govt is for the roads to only have smallish potholes in them, and for the worst criminals to be caught/killed, maybe fair courts too.

    • #20
    • February 18, 2012 at 2:11 am
  21. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    I’d also like for the govt to keep invaders out, if at all possible, so a strong national defense is OK by me too.

    In exchange for these things from govt, I am willing to pay the minimum amount of tax necessary to fund them, but not a penny more.

    I don’t want anything from God’s various churches, except to be left alone. If I pray or not or how I do it is none of their concern. I will leave them alone, they should do me the same kindness.

    I don’t want anything to do with the drug boosters either. A lot of that stuff shouldn’t be illegal, but at the same time, even if it were legal, I wouldn’t be using it. Booze is legal, but I don’t drink it. You don’t need a law to stop you from doing something (as if that were possible anyway).

    Now, does any of that sound like cause to the downfall of American culture?

    I’ll thank you to not paint with quite so wide a brush when assigning blame for the state this country is in.

    • #21
    • February 18, 2012 at 2:17 am
  22. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive
    Astonishing

    But Libertarians complaining about just “wanting to be left alone” is kinda like a juvenile pouting fit. Maybe they should snap out of that funk, and get in the game.

    Careful what you wish for, sir, as you may find that more than a few of us will turn up on the other side of this divide.

    If I had a choice between smelly hippies and nosy busybodies, I’d take the hippies every time.

    At least smelly pot heads are too stoned to give me crap about what color my house is painted, or whether car is too loud, or fuel efficient enough, or whatever. Plus, you can smell them coming.

    Busy bodies peep into other people’s windows, snoop around other people’s houses, and generally make a nuisance of themselves, all in the name of making sure nobody has any more fun than they think should be allowed.

    Keep banging that drum about how you’re constitutionally allowed to legislate “moral behavior” (meaning tell people do any damned thing you please, so long as it’s traditional), and watch as your coalition dwindles down into a few thousand copies of Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady”.

    • #22
    • February 18, 2012 at 2:37 am
  23. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    Some “Small Government” conservatives you lot turned out to be.

    From where I’m setting, it sounds like a lot of you all want a limited government, in that you only want it forcing other people to do the things you approve of.

    That’s basically exactly what we have now, only with liberals at the helm.

    You guys actually think that the govt is doing a good job now, save that they’re forcing people to do the wrong things?

    Really?

    If so, that’s just about the saddest thing I’ve heard in years. . .

    • #23
    • February 18, 2012 at 2:41 am
  24. Profile photo of Eric Rasmusen Inactive

    “This is only way of reconciling the paradox that while Americans broadly disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception (which polls suggest that they do by large amounts) they also disagree with Obama’s reforms.”

    There are other arguments:

     1. Why should birth control be in*any* insurance plan, any more than plastic surgery or aspirin? It’s not protection against a risky event.

    2. Not as a matter of freedom, but as a matter of economic efficiency, the government should stop imposing expensive mandates on insurance coverage. Lots of people would rather pay less for a plan that covers less things, but government regulation doesn’t permit them. This is one reason for high healthcare spending in the US— the government makes cheap health care illegal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the treatment covered by the NHS in Britain would be illegally skimpy for a U.S.insurance plan.

    • #24
    • February 18, 2012 at 3:17 am
  25. Profile photo of Astonishing Inactive

    My hypothesis is that there’s a larger phenomenon that will envelop and supercede culture war issues–very soon.

    I refer to this novel coincidence: a large demographic group–baby boomers–beginning to confront the reality of mortality without substantial benefit of religion.

    Fashionable substitutes for the faiths of our fathers– substitutes that served well enough when boomers were young and vigorous–provide little guidance or comfort now that mortality becomes something more than theoretical. We will very soon see, we already do see, the beginning of a national “come to Jesus meeting” among those whose progenitors were Christian, and something respectively similar among those who progenitors were of other faiths.

    This desperate search for understanding within the structure of  traditional family faith will generate plenty of interesting confusion, but the amorality, relativism, value-free non-judgmentalism, libertinism of one side of the cultural war divide will whither. Old people don’t particularly care about the pill, now do they? But they do begin to wonder what will happen to their (hopefully) immortal souls. This rather confused re-spiritualization will melt, or bridge, the culture war divide.

    Has Santorum found the wave? Or has the wave found Santorum?

    • #25
    • February 18, 2012 at 7:40 am
  26. Profile photo of Astonishing Inactive
    CoolHand:

    All I want from govt is for the roads to only have smallish potholes in them, and for the worst criminals to be caught/killed, maybe fair courts too. · 5 hours ago

    Well, sorry to remind, but we don’t always get what we want, especially in our republic, wherein, except to the extent it is contrained by constitutional limitations, the majority rules.

    Llibertarians, who claim to adore the Constitution, don’t seem to understand this annoying fact: Our Constitution does permit legislating about morality. Our Constitution provides many valuable rights, but a right to be left alone is not one of them. Sorry.

    Maybe the Libertarians should all get together and found a new nation. They could call it Libertianalia, or some such. Otherwise, maybe they should try to get used to their fellow citizens legislating about behavior, and concentrate on making sure that such legislation does not go beyond what the Constitution permits, and that legislation that is within bounds is also wise and reasonable.

    But Libertarians complaining about just “wanting to be left alone” is kinda like a juvenile pouting fit. Maybe they should snap out of that funk, and get in the game.

    • #26
    • February 18, 2012 at 8:02 am
  27. Profile photo of JusticewithSideburns Member
    Jeff Younger
    Robert Lux: I suppose I could write a whole post, from a tyrannical “Straussian” perspective (we also have secret, retractable fangs), […] It’s sad that conservatives cannot see that “gay” marriage is intrinsic to the very logic of the welfare state: i.e., individuality run amok, with all the dire consequences as Tocqueville predicted. 

    If people have “mellowed” to SSM — and this is the way things should be and an outcome that is to be defended — then there reallyis something to the Leftist (and libertarian) critique that opposition to the domestication of the “gay” “lifestyle” is equal to promotion of miscegenation laws. 

    And you’ve misread Tocqueville. How can collectivist government policies aimed at destroying the traditional family be called “individualism”? It’s a typical Straussian bait-and-switch. · 21 hours ago

    Lux seems to be spot on. That is, if you start from the premise that every man should “seek for his opinions within himself,” the logical conclusion is a myriad of “alternative lifestyles,” each imbued with presumptive equality. Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same coin, both assume the answers to more fundamental questions about the good.

    • #27
    • February 18, 2012 at 8:56 am
  28. Profile photo of starnescl Member
    Jeff Younger
    Charles Starnes: We don’t need to preach to the choir; We need to implore the non-ideological and the independents that their ox will be gored, they will be robbed of their choice, and Obama will not care what you have to say about it. · 5 minutes ago

    Edited 2 minutes ago

    That is one of the most intelligent comments I’ve read on Ricochet.

    Let’s explore why we preach to the choir. We’re a fractured party. Republicans are not all liberty-minded. Most elected Republicans do not practice limited government. The ugly truth is that we’re still trying to convince our own that liberty is good policy. · 2 hours ago

    Thanks for the praise, but I look at it a bit differently.

    The right is not fractured on their opposition to Obama. However, the non-ideological and independents are not naturally with us. 

    There are very effective arguments at the ready to get them to turn on Obama/Obamacare through their inherent sense of fairness . . . and the fact it’s going to come down like a ton of bricks on them too.

    Obama will rob them of choice, then completely ignore their voices.

    • #28
    • February 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm
  29. Profile photo of Astonishing Inactive
    CoolHand
    Astonishing

    But Libertarians complaining about just “wanting to be left alone” is kinda like a juvenile pouting fit. . . .

     . . . If I had a choice between smelly hippies and nosy busybodies, I’d take the hippies every time.

     . . . . Busy bodies peep into other people’s windows, . . [to make] sure nobody has any more fun than they think should be allowed.

    Keep banging that drum about how you’re constitutionally allowed to legislate “moral behavior” . . . and watch as your coalition dwindles down into a few thousand copies of Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady”.

    How stale is your accusation that only a Church Lady would think our Constitution permits legislation on moral questions?

    Read Steyn’s recent piece mocking how the left has once again deployed it: “Those uptight squares with the hang-ups about fornication have decided to force you to lead the same cheerless sex lives as them.” Sounds rather like your hyperbole about windowpeeping busybodies!

    The world has more than only ChurchLadies, smellyhippies, and Libertarians. Many reasonable people, including our founders (and our Diane Ellis), understood politics is indivisible from morality. You Libertarians mistake their concern for limited central government as a prohibition of all legislation about moral questions.

    • #29
    • February 19, 2012 at 9:57 am
  30. Profile photo of CoolHand Inactive

    I think it’s kinda funny that you think I’ve simply misinterpreted something I read someplace, and that’s why I wish to be left alone.

    I never said that the Constitution prevented busy bodies from over regulating our lives.

    I said I’m against it.

    You seem to think that just because the Constitution does not prohibit it, that it’s not only fine and dandy, but good per se.

    I disagree.

    I suspect that we two are never going to see eye to eye on this score.

    • #30
    • February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am
  1. 1
  2. 2