GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists to Leave

[Ed Hudgins]

GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists to Leave

By Edward Hudgins

Former Arkansas governor and presidential contender Mike Huckabee threatens that if Republicans embrace same-sex marriage and ignore the religious right agenda, he will lead evangelicals and social conservatives out of the GOP and form a third party.

Republican leaders should take him up on his offer and let ’em walk! Otherwise the extreme social conservatives will relegate the GOP to the dustbin of history.

The GOP’s civil war

The GOP’s 2012 election defeats have ignited a full scale civil war between the three factions within the Republican Party.

The first faction consists in establishment conservatives who are social engineers from the right. They accept the welfare state; they just want to introduce market mechanisms to make programs like Social Security and Medicare work better. They’ve even expanded the welfare state: George W. Bush created No Child Left Behind and a new prescription drug entitlement; Mitt Romney created Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.

The second faction is made up of the social conservatives, including many evangelicals like Huckabee. Their highest priorities include limiting the liberty of gays to marry and banning abortion. They dream of imposing their version of Christian values on America. Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania Senator, is quite clear about his faction’s ideology: “This whole idea of personal autonomy—I don’t think that most conservatives hold that point of view.” He argues that “We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Many social conservatives even reject economic liberty. They want government to manage markets and use entitlements to “strengthen the family.”

The third faction consists in the Goldwater-Reagan-style advocates of limited government and individualism, a perspective that is now manifest in the Tea Party movement. Their greatest concern is runaway federal spending and debt, and the expansion of federal power beyond all Constitutional limits, whether through Obamacare or Republican programs. For them Job One is reining in government. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is their libertarian-leaning hero.

If social conservatives leave

The best way to end the GOP civil war is to let Huckabee, Santorum, and their followers leave. One might object that half of GOP primary voters in 2012 were white evangelicals and that the party would be dead without them. But not all evangelicals and social conservatives, however much they agree on same-sex marriage and abortion, rank these as the party’s priorities. Indeed, surveys show that about half of Tea Party activists are socially conservative while the other half are libertarian-leaning. Not all, perhaps not even most, social conservatives and evangelicals will leave.

The evangelicals are an aging, shrinking part of the voter pool. Worse, they scare away younger voters who are socially liberal. Romney only received 37 percent of the votes of 18-29 year-olds. And once young people vote two or three times in a row for a particular party, they’ll likely continue to vote that way for the rest of their lives.

The most dynamic element within the GOP has been the young Ron Paul supporters who have little love for social conservatives who are bent on managing their personal lives. GOP survival depends on harnessing the energy and the votes of this group. Fewer Huckabees in the party will make this task much easier.

New blood

Another potential source of new blood for the GOP is the new information-age wealth creators. These Steve-Jobs types are individualists and innovators who love their work and who generally see private initiative rather than government programs as the path to prosperity. But they loathe the perceived intolerance of social conservatives. Fewer Huckabees will make the GOP a more inviting place to party.

Romney received only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Yet by 2050, 30 percent of the American population will be Hispanic. Heavily-Catholic Hispanics tend to be socially conservative. But they are most concerned about economic opportunity, which solid free-market policies can offer. Unfortunately, the GOP’s social conservatives disproportionally favor harsh treatment for illegal immigrants. They’re seen by many Hispanics as callous and even racist. But immigrants—legal or otherwise—tend to embody the drive for self-improvement through hard work that Republicans should celebrate. Fewer Huckabees will allow the GOP to celebrate more Hispanic voters.

A modernist, pro-liberty party

The more sensible social conservatives would realize that with the limited government promoted by a more libertarian GOP they’d have less fear for the liberties they love, for example, the freedom to homeschool. And establishment conservatives today are distancing themselves from many big-government programs they once supported. They’d likely work with libertarians to establish true free markets, which would offer opportunities that would obviate the need for welfare state programs.

A GOP minus the most extreme social conservatives and evangelicals would be a modernist, pro-liberty party that could win elections by promoting individualist values.

-----------

Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society, at www.atlassociety.org.

For further reading:

Edward Hudgins, “CPAC, Social Conservatives Wrong on Gays.” March 11, 2013.

Edward Hudgins, “Rick Santorum: The Most Anti-Reagan Republican.” January 6, 2012.

[Ed Hudgins]

My video on the GOP and social conservative extremists:

[Selene]

Ed:

You make some excellent points.

However, the Republican Party is essentially dead which ever way this breaks.

The entrenched old line "country club Republicans," the big government hacks like Boehner, Cantor and other statist centrists in the party and the big government technicians from the Bush wing are incompatible with libertarianism.

A...

[Peter]

deleted. I will try again

[Peter]

Try try again

[Peter]

I seem to be having trouble on OL. My paragraph spaces are disappearing.

Edward Hudgins wrote: A GOP minus the most extreme social conservatives and evangelicals would be a modernist, pro-liberty party that could win elections by promoting individualist values.

end quote

Well said, Ed, but I want nothing to do with exclusion. It is sort of like a version of political correctness. A modern Republican Party can be inclusive and still stand for the right things. Just look at the current RNC frontrunners for 2013 in order of possible nomination: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan, who are all worthy of a Tea Party. And they all personally loath abortion but they can make a case for keeping Roe v. Wade in the first three months of pregnancy. They will hopefully not make it a priority to fight to take away a womans right to an abortion. Even hinting at Supreme Court nominees who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade will lose the young womans vote. That must not happen.

On the other hand . . . could we get rid of the bible thumpers anyway? Zeus knows it would be fine if we could do without the bubble heads and still win an election. My rational compromise would be to NOT vote for the Social Conservatives, give no money to the Bachmanns, Huckabees, and Palins on the Right, in any primary and just emphasize what is important in 2014 and 2016: Liberty!

Adam wrote: The entrenched old line country club Republicans, the big government hacks like Boehner, Cantor and other statist centrists in the party and the big government technicians from the Bush wing are incompatible with libertarianism.

end quote

My wife and I get mail from the RNC all the time and they are always pushing Tea Party Issues, Adam. Reece Preebus (chortle) never mentions old line centrists / statists. Its always about the new wave. You would be surprised what they send you if you donated over $500 to them in the last election. This is one of those thoughts you had like when you said Rush Limbaugh was not a libertarian republican. He is a Tea Party guy except for his denunciation of abortion, as I proved by sending OL three pages of his shows different themes that were broadcast over several years.

I think the Social Cons had something to do with Romney losing. In the last primary that The Huckster ran in, he said Romney and the Mormons were walking hand in hand with the devil. And then he apologized. If he keeps mouthing this third party crap I will petition Fox to drop his show, and I will stop watching the Governor on those slow Saturday nights.

Because of the input to Objectivist Living from spokespeople at The Objectivist Center I upped my yearly donation from $125 to $150. I hope to hear from you soon. Just never say to anyone (other than skinheads and fascists,) I dont want your vote. I need a win. We need a win. And I am still an Objectivist for all that.

Peter

[Ed Hudgins]

Peter - It's Huckabee who's threatening to walk and my point is that if his priorities are so different from the freedom faction of the GOP and many social conservatives as well, the party should do nothing to prevent him from taking the most extreme elements and forming a third party if he wants. I've spoken at Tea Party events and I judge most folks there to be socially conservative. But their priorities are to rein in big government.

And as I mentioned, without the most extreme elements of soc. cons. the party could attract a lot more young people, entrepreneurs, and Hispanics.

But if primary candidates next time around--Paul, Rubio, Ryan, Cruz, who are all socially conservative--don't feel they need to trip over one another to appeal to the most extreme soc. cons., the party will have a better chance of winning with a pro-freedom agenda.

[syrakusos]

Democrats should invite the economic interventionists to leave.

Why not jump in to the DNC, join up, and help them?

Well, it is because far too many self-identified "Objectivists" are really just atheist conservatives. "Radicals for capitalism" has a nice ring to it, but like all slogans, it masks more than it announces.

Pussy Cat Taylor wrote: ... Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan, who are all worthy of a Tea Party. And they all personally loath abortion but they can make a case for keeping Roe v. Wade in the first three months of pregnancy. They will hopefully not make it a priority to fight to take away a womans right to an abortion. ...

That would be "state-sanctioned privilege to terminate a pregnancy before the 91st day" because the Stars in Heaven have demonstrated that it takes 89 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds to create an actual life, versus an Aristotleanly potential life. Here is a radical capitalist idea: Your mother NEVER loses her inalienable natural right to kill you. The so-called "birth" of cutting the umbilical cord is only symbolic to primitive people. The baby cannot live on its own, certainly not for 10 years give or take. It is in the giving and taking that liberals and conservatives alike find themselves lacking in education or intelligence. If you can terminate a first trimester human being, you can terminate a first year fetus.

(According to Rabbinical Law when does a fetus become a human being? Answer: when it graduates from law school.)

Why stop there? You have absolutely no scientific proof that 90 days is any different than 89 or 91. Admit that you are a mystic, not a true radical for capitalism Objectivist.

[studiodekadent]

And as I mentioned, without the most extreme elements of soc. cons. the party could attract a lot more young people, entrepreneurs, and Hispanics.

I agree entirely.

Excellent article. Let's hope it has some effect.

[syrakusos]

Over on RoR, at least one person found my statements similar to #8 above to be oblique, if not obtuse. Let me clarify my intention.

Neither side of the abortion debate has a clearly objective statement of the problem or its proposed solution. In fact, to me the problem as more than two sides, but so far, we have no way to query the fetus about its desires - that is coming in the future. Meanwhile:

• If abortion is murder, as the Religious Right claims, then is a miscarriage a case of manslaughter? By that logic, such cases should be investigated as crimes, as would be any traffic accident that took a human life.
• If the mother has a right to terminate a pregnancy, when does she lose that right? We let it be at the cutting of the cord, but that is merely traditional, not objective or scientific.

I have no answers. But I do not pretend to. The two sides in this debate pretend to have answers, at least they have fooled themselves into the claim.

As for the broader and actual topic about the GOP and the Religious Right, why not just tell all the political parties what they have to do to win our votes and see who cares?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a radical capitalist idea: Your mother NEVER loses her inalienable natural right to kill you.

Over on RoR, at least one person found my statements similar to #8 above to be oblique, if not obtuse. Let me clarify...

Michael,

And did you really think anyone is going to take that first idea seriously over there? Or over here, even with a lot of explaining?

Dayaamm!

(That's OK by me, though. I admire your attempt at controversy, even when you misfire that badly. You got balls. )

Michael

[We Erred Rand]

Marotta performed a Sieg Heil! and declared:

"Your mother NEVER loses her inalienable natural right to kill you."

So much for man's life being the standard of value. Clearly, Marotta believes that only some men's lives serve as standards of value; other men's lives, by definition, have no value at all.

[We Erred Rand]

Hudgins arbitrarily claimed:

"And as I mentioned, without the most extreme elements of soc. cons. the party could attract a lot more young people, entrepreneurs, and Hispanics."

Any evidence for that claim?

Additionally,

1) If nothing is preventing Huckabee from walking away from the GOP and forming a 3rd party, it's equally true that nothing is preventing young people, entrepreneurs, and Hispanics from forming a 3rd party. Interesting that they don't do so.

2) Hispanics tend to be Catholic and socially conservative. They are predominantly against gay marriage and abortion. Obviously, since they are here rather than in Mexico or Guatemala, they are in favor of open immigration and amnesty for those who sneaked across the border and came to the U.S. "without documents", i.e., illegally.

Third parties are ineffective in the U.S., including categories like "Independent." The GOP should stick together and work out their differences, which is not impossible, except for the fact that most its politicians are simply not very smart, and most of them agree with the basic idea of the welfare state and rent-seeking. It's a fairly straightforward argument that if one is against abortion (to take one key issue), they key to reducing it radically is to get the federal government out of it entirely. Many individuals are against abortion and therefore many state's would ban it or strictly limit it — e.g., North Dakota is considering a bill to ban the procedure entirely. So if a North Dakotan lass gets herself knocked up and wants to murder her fetus, she can go to California to have it done. California could use her money.

If government got out of the marriage business entirely, marriage would return to being a covenant, and not merely a state-enforced contract with a secular-property aspect to it, and without doubt, many churches and synagogues would simply decline to perform same-sex unions at the insistence of its members. If a member dislikes the policy, he is free to leave and to join a church or synagogue that more closely conformed to his values.

Many people, including self-styled Objectivists, seem to be unaware that minorities such as blacks used to be overwhelmingly Republican. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, was a Republican his entire life. The reason is that, to blacks, the Democratic Party had been the party of pro-slavery in the 19th century, and the party of pro-segregation, Jim Crow laws in the 20th. White labor unions were strongholds of the Democratic Party, and they were anti-black (and anti-woman) to the core.* Allegiance to the GOP began to crumble only with the LBJ administration and the implementation of various "Great Society" welfare programs. The Democratic Party essentially bought the allegiance of blacks by convincing them that all of their problems were traceable to discrimination by whites, which could be alleviated by "special consideration" (welfare payments, affirmative action) guaranteed to them by the federal government.

The only way to wean people off of getting "free stuff" from government is to convince them that they'd do even better without the government; that government is actually standing in their way of better opportunities. It's absolutely true, of course, but it's a hard sell, and it usually requires someone as knowledgeable, politically deft, and charismatic as a Reagan to pull it off. Someone like Rand Paul might have it. We'll see.

* In fact, it was labor unions that originally advocated the implementation of the federally-mandated minimum wage. The purpose was to find a way of making potential competition in the field of unskilled labor — women, children, and blacks (i.e., those just starting to enter the workforce) — too expensive for an employer to hire given their lack of experience compared to a union member. In other words, unions lobbied (eventually successfully) on behalf of imposing the equivalent of a domestic tariff on low-priced, unskilled labor.

[We Erred Rand]

Marotta again:

"If abortion is murder, as the Religious Right claims, then is a miscarriage a case of manslaughter? By that logic, such cases should be investigated as crimes, as would be any traffic accident that took a human life."

But not every traffic accident that took a human life is deemed a crime. Even in cases of manslaughter, there is a "mens rea" requirement ("a guilty mind"). In the case of a traffic accident, it makes a whole lot of difference if the unintentional taking of life occurred because lightning struck a tree, causing it to fall into the middle of the road, and causing a driver to veer suddenly; or if the unintentional taking of life occurred because the driver had been drinking, or texting, or was in some way simply inattentive to the road, and is thus, partly guilty. Same with miscarriages. If it's simply a spontaneous abortion of the pregnancy because the body sensed something wrong, that's one thing; if it miscarriages because the woman is a crack addict, a smoker, a drinker, or intentionally took undue physical risks, that's another.

Additionally, it's often difficult enough establishing "mens rea " in manslaughter traffic accidents; it is even more so in miscarriages. The law often looks the other way in the many instances in which it is simply a matter of practical impossibility to establish guilt. And finally, the law often sees the unintentional loss of a fetus as punishment enough to a woman who engages in risky behavior like drinking, smoking, drug/substance abuse, etc.

Marotta copied his rhetorical question above from an old blog-post by economist George Reisman. Reisman was wrong then, just as Marotta is wrong now.

[BaalChatzaf]

Additionally, it's often difficult enough establishing "mens rea " in manslaughter traffic accidents; it is even more so in miscarriages. The law often looks the other way in the many instances in which it is simply a matter of practical impossibility to establish guilt. And finally, the law often sees the unintentional loss of a fetus as punishment enough to a woman who engages in risky behavior like drinking, smoking, drug/substance abuse, etc.

Getting pregnant is risky in and of itself. It is only in the last 100 or so years that the risks of pregnancy have been reduced to a manageable level.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Sadly, "skippy," a.k.a. "We Erred Rand," in it's endlessly effete and erudite posts, utilized the common law term "mens rea," apparently, being the intellectual bully that it is, fails to provide the relevant definitions of terms, which, of course, is part of the subconscious bullying that it engages in, on a continuous basis here on OL.

Here are the relevant definitions.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.

Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.

Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.

Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Additionally, there is a common law doctrine of "contributory negligence," which, is, a difficult and dissonant concept to many folks outside the legal semantic to understand. Hopefully the following will assist in OL folks understanding.

Alexander v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc. – Alexander sued Kramer Brothers after he suffered personal injuries in an accident with the defendant’s truck and Kramer Brothers asserted contributory negligence as a defense. The court held that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that he or she was not contributorily negligent.

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman – Goodman was struck and killed by a train while driving over a railroad crossing. His view was obstructed and he did not get out to look for an approaching train. The court ordered a directed verdict that Goodman was contributorily negligent on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff under the facts of the case.

Brown v. Kendall – Kendall injured Brown while trying to separate their dogs and stop them from fighting. Brown was standing behind Kendall and he was struck in the eye with a stick. The court held that the injured party cannot recover if both parties were not negligent, or if both parties were negligent, or if the injured party was negligent but the defendant was not.

Butterfield v. Forrester – Forrester laid a pole across a road. Butterfield was riding at high speed at twilight and did not see the pole. He hit the pole and suffered personal injuries. The court held that Butterfield was contributorily negligent because if he had been using ordinary care he would have been able to see and avoid the obstruction.

Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co. – Eckert saw a boy sitting on railroad tracks. He succeeded in saving the boy but was struck and killed by the train. The court held that when a rescuer attempts to save someone in imminent peril, he may assume extraordinary risks or perform dangerous acts without being contributorily negligent.

Martin v. Herzog – Martin was killed in an accident while driving a buggy without lights at night. The defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road. The court held that the violation of a statutory duty of care is negligence per se and a jury may not relax that duty. In order for a party to be liable for negligent conduct, the conduct must be the cause of the injury.

Roberts v. Ring – Ring was 77 years old and had impaired hearing and vision. While driving on a busy street he saw a seven year old boy run into his path but failed to stop in time to avoid hitting him. The court held that while the defendant cannot take advantage of impairments and infirmities to avoid a finding of negligence, the injured party is held to a standard that takes age and maturity into account.

Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co. – Smithwick was told not to work on a platform but was not told that the wall was about to collapse. He worked on platform despite the warning because he believed the risk of falling was the only danger. The court held that the failure to heed a warning is not contributory negligence if the injury was the result of a different source of risk caused by the defendant, and the injured party was unaware of that risk.

Solomon v. Shuell – Plain clothes police officers were arresting robbery suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being attacked and was shot by one of the officers when he came out of his house with a gun. The court held that under the rescue doctrine, contributory negligence is not present if the rescuer had a reasonable belief that the victim was in actual danger.

Alexander v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc. – Alexander sued Kramer Brothers after he suffered personal injuries in an accident with the defendant’s truck and Kramer Brothers asserted contributory negligence as a defense. The court held that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that he or she was not contributorily negligent.

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman – Goodman was struck and killed by a train while driving over a railroad crossing. His view was obstructed and he did not get out to look for an approaching train. The court ordered a directed verdict that Goodman was contributorily negligent on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff under the facts of the case.

Brown v. Kendall – Kendall injured Brown while trying to separate their dogs and stop them from fighting. Brown was standing behind Kendall and he was struck in the eye with a stick. The court held that the injured party cannot recover if both parties were not negligent, or if both parties were negligent, or if the injured party was negligent but the defendant was not.

Butterfield v. Forrester – Forrester laid a pole across a road. Butterfield was riding at high speed at twilight and did not see the pole. He hit the pole and suffered personal injuries. The court held that Butterfield was contributorily negligent because if he had been using ordinary care he would have been able to see and avoid the obstruction.

Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co. – Eckert saw a boy sitting on railroad tracks. He succeeded in saving the boy but was struck and killed by the train. The court held that when a rescuer attempts to save someone in imminent peril, he may assume extraordinary risks or perform dangerous acts without being contributorily negligent.

Martin v. Herzog – Martin was killed in an accident while driving a buggy without lights at night. The defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road. The court held that the violation of a statutory duty of care is negligence per se and a jury may not relax that duty. In order for a party to be liable for negligent conduct, the conduct must be the cause of the injury.

Roberts v. Ring – Ring was 77 years old and had impaired hearing and vision. While driving on a busy street he saw a seven year old boy run into his path but failed to stop in time to avoid hitting him. The court held that while the defendant cannot take advantage of impairments and infirmities to avoid a finding of negligence, the injured party is held to a standard that takes age and maturity into account.

Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co. – Smithwick was told not to work on a platform but was not told that the wall was about to collapse. He worked on platform despite the warning because he believed the risk of falling was the only danger. The court held that the failure to heed a warning is not contributory negligence if the injury was the result of a different source of risk caused by the defendant, and the injured party was unaware of that risk.

Solomon v. Shuell – Plain clothes police officers were arresting robbery suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being attacked and was shot by one of the officers when he came out of his house with a gun. The court held that under the rescue doctrine, contributory negligence is not present if the rescuer had a reasonable belief that the victim was in actual danger.

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael M – Your post here is really incoherent but in posts on other threads I think you expressed your concerns about Republicans/conservative much better. So I’ll comment on your general concern (and those of others as well).

You make an error when you consider all Republicans and those labeled “conservatives” to be of the same set of beliefs. I’ve done a breakdown similar to Steve Wolfer’s on the CPAC thread on Rebirth of Reason. http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=5&Thread=3219 There are social conservatives, neo-cons, and libertarianish conservatives. Further, as I observe in my GOP piece, about half of Tea Party activists are social conservatives. But abortion, gay marriage, and such issues are not their priorities. People are full of contradictions and we can exploit them for the good, encouraging the right beliefs and sentiments.

What’s the alternative to trying to work on many fronts—the political, the academic, etc.—to create a more rational, individualist culture and more limited government? Wait until everyone is converted to Objectivism? Sit on the sidelines and bitch about the world going to hell and passively letting it happen?

By the way, when I was at Cato, Ed Crane and others were making efforts to reach out/educate Democrats on economic liberty. But as I observe in a longer piece I’ll publish soon, top Democrat leaders have changed over the past 30-40 years. They use to generally favor free enterprise and private property, but also believed in a government safety net and government intervening to correct what they saw—mistakenly—as market fails. But most of the leaders today really are Euro-socialists, believing in government control across the board. They are more hopeless than in decades past.

The Tea Party movement, however, offers hope for the GOP as do the Ron Paul supporters.

So complain if you wish, but I’ll continue to work on whatever fronts look most promising to make sure the future is not an America collapsing like Greece or Cyprus.

[Peter]

Ed Hudgins wrote:

And as I mentioned, without the most extreme elements of soc. cons. the party could attract a lot more young people, entrepreneurs, and Hispanics . . . . But if primary candidates next time around--Paul, Rubio, Ryan, Cruz, who are all socially conservative--don't feel they need to trip over one another to appeal to the most extreme soc. cons., the party will have a better chance of winning with a pro-freedom agenda.

end quote

Now I get your point. Very astute. I think I feel a tremor but will it turn into a pro-freedom earthquake? The Four Horsemen - Paul, Rubio, Ryan, and Cruz all of whom support the rights of the unborn, seem moderate compared to Huckabee. They could still gather the socially conservative vote and their social stances preclude the Huckster from gathering much third party support. I remember during the last two elections social issues were supposed to be on the back burner.

I will advise Republican strategists to tell all who want to run in the primaries that we are in this together. In hindsight, I think the Gingrich who stole Christmas was too hard on Romney, (since Romney won the primary count) but Romney was no political pacifist either. I hope our candidates run better primaries and elections, without gutting the other runners.

I can agree with the Objectivist Centers stance on abortion: no questions asked in the first trimester but I reason that when a *person* is onboard then there are two rights bearing individuals in the calculation. A person springs into being when its brainwaves start as Roger Bissell has proven. Remember the scene in the Jodie Foster movie, Contact when she first hears the aliens signaling? Wow, that look in her eyes, that signaled proof of existence! Place of existence (swimming in a womans womb or in a far off galaxy) does not prove existence. Location only complicates the ethics of abortion.

Ed wrote in response to Michael Marotta:

So complain if you wish, but Ill continue to work on whatever fronts look most promising to make sure the future is not an America collapsing like Greece or Cyprus.

end quote

Exactly. I would NEVER SAY to a social conservative, I dont want your vote. The stakes are too great to deliberately alienate them.

Peter

[Peter]

Michael M. called me Pussy Cat Taylor. Now thats just mean. My white, feline avatar, Sparks is more related to a tiger than a pussy cat.

Michael E. Marotta also wrote:

Your mother NEVER loses her inalienable natural right to kill you . . . . (According to Rabbinical Law when does a fetus become a human being? Answer: when it graduates from law school.)

end quote

In that first quoted sentence, you are kidding, right? I cannot tell what your stance is. Michael, for the sake of argument let us use Ayn Rands statement that rights begin at birth. Is a viable baby delivered by Caesarian Section rights bearing? Rand would say, Yes. If personhood begins at separation from the mother, does the miscarriage of a viable infant also count as personhood? Rand would say, Yes. The baby lying there is equivalent to a naturally born baby. Its location is only important in the sense that it is no longer inside the mother. Does location change the law of identity? No. I agree with Ayn Rand, that there IS a status change at birth, but the law of identity states that what is - is.

If you disagree imagine this emergency room scenario. Three women are in the emergency room. One woman gives birth naturally. One women has a Caesarian Section. One woman has a miscarriage, but in each case the baby is viable. The shift changes and new doctors and nurses enter the ER and observe all three babies in incubators. Would they observe any difference in those babys, rights bearing, personhood? Of course not, and Rand would agree. All three are persons.

Let us extend our delivery room scenario to four viable babies. What if a womans intent is to kill her baby by abortion? Does intent change the law of identity? No. If a baby is viable but is separated from its mother by abortion it is still the same as a viably born, naturally delivered baby. It has the same identity as a viably born baby miscarried, or a viable baby born through Caesarian Section. The shift change medical personnel see four babies in incubators and the doctors and nurses all agree that those four babies are all the same: rights bearing individuals, endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think the evidence shows Ayn Rand and true Objectivists agree with this analysis.

That monster in Philadelphia who murdered the babies he aborted should rot in jail, or be aborted. Objectivism is evolving from a cult. Ayn Rand did make errors.

Peter

[Ed Hudgins]

Perhaps I should summarize with bullet points my argument to make it clear:

*The extreme social conservatives and evangelicals are the ones who give the social issues the highest priority and, in the case of Huckabee, will leave the party if those are not the party’s priority. (See my CPAC article of a month or two ago as well.)

*The extreme social conservatives and evangelicals are scaring away other potential voters from the GOP. The Hispanic vote for Republicans has dropped significantly since 2004. Youth vote has slipped as well. Also look at surveys and exit polls about the concerns independents have about the GOP.

*The priority for many social conservatives is to stop runaway government. They still oppose abortion and gay marriage but Job One is returning the government to its Constitutional limits.

*Many if not most of these social conservatives will stay in the party if Huckabee takes the extreme elements to a third party.

*The new blood could more than offset the loss of those elements.

[syrakusos]

Michael E. Marotta also wrote:

Your mother NEVER loses her inalienable natural right to kill you . . . . (According to Rabbinical Law when does a fetus become a human being? Answer: when it graduates from law school.)

Peter replied: "In that first quoted sentence, you are kidding, right? I cannot tell what your stance is. Michael, ..."

It was just a rationalist strawman to outline the failure of pro-abortion advocates to consider the facts of reality. This issue is brutally complicated and modern philosophy or ancient religion have proved themselves wholly incapable of framing the problem, let alone offering a solution.

In your scenario, the hospital staff has three different babies in incubators. I grant that this leave out (purposefully and meaningfully) the means of their birth delivery. You begin to parameterize the problem very well. However, a baby in an incubator is not self-sustaining.

As I noted above, if being "self-sustaining" is a requirement of an entity with rights, then babies have no rights for at least a couple of years, maybe more. Rather than clutter up this thread, I will start another later.

One last point though, in reply to Ed Hudgins above: as I noted on RoR, according to the Pew Foundation polls, these are not extreme views. Sizable minorities to absolute majorities agree with the religionist point of view. Changing that requires something other than convincing the Republican leadership to pursue Hispanic and Gen-XYZ voters. Otherwise, there is no morality here only political pragmatism. Philosophy is at the root of politics. If you want to change the political climate, start with the philosophical foundations.