Mike Huckabee and libertarians

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument.

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."  

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts.  Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

  • Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me").   This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.
  • Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious.  It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics.  For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God".   He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."  He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies.  The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.
  • Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats.  Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans.  Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives.  So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives.  Cry me a river.  We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition.  The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition. 

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Comments

Flush the Huckaboob!

Dump the Huckabees and the Parkers. Both are more concerned about themselves than they are the good of the movement, the party and the country, for that matter. We don't need divisive voices on the right anymore and need to find common cause to restrengthen the coalition and hopefully make the coalition bigger.

 

I'm sorry, you've got four different movements

and only three of them are publically visible, most of the time.

oth are more concerned about

oth are more concerned about themselves than they are the good of the movement, the party and the country, for that matter...thank you Stop Dreaming Start Action | Rusli Zainal Sang Visioner | kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Sukabumi | lowongan kerja | webdesign murah

For real

Huckabee is a jesus nutjob.

I have no problem with our leaders being religious. If it makes them better leaders with clearer heads, then more power to them.

That being said, I have no problem with our leaders being religious and keeping that religion to themsevles.

Huckabee is the worst of both worlds. Higher taxes and government in the bedroom.

Footsoldiers

I think Parker's column was foolish inasmuch as social conservatives (like myself) provide a host of manpower during election season (i.e. phonecalling, yard sign delivery).  While I love reading Lew Rockwell and listening to his podcasts, I'm involved in politics for two reasons: (1) stop abortion and (2) defend traditional marriage.  Cultural issues matter; they rouse people and create movements.

Now, I also think that Huck's caricature of libertarianism is off-base.  There is a BIG virtue in sound money (which I regard as the most important libertarian idea).  Nevertheless, there are many left-libertarians out there who champion abortion and gay "marriage."

Huck doesn't disagree with Libertarianism per se...

but with the branch of Libertarianism that only wants small gov't/low taxes and wants to ignore social issues.

He's probably against that too

Most Libertarians (if they where sticking to their principles) would come down on the more liberal side of social issues like gay marriage and maybe abortion.

definitely abortion.

though I'm certain that there would be a strong minority who want to create artificial wombs -- and more power to them!

Productivity increases are good.

Ron Paul has never really

Ron Paul has never really denied his associations w/Holocaust Deniers, Anti-Semite groups and White Supremacists. He's tried, however, only to explain it away and dismiss it. (shockproof digital camera and olympus waterproof digital camera)

Huck's ugly side returns

but with the branch of Libertarianism that only wants small gov't/low taxes and wants to ignore social issues.

Well, even if so, he's wrong and he's a bad example. .. we need him off the national stage if he is going to be divisive like this.

Huck called Club for Growth "Club for Greed" for exposing his weak tax-and-spend record last year. It was a tipoff to me that he was unfit to lead the party, because, in a pinch, his knee will jerk against instead of in favor of free markets and low taxes and free enterprise.

It's bad enough that Huck is weak on these issues, but his ATTACKS on fiscal conservatives and pro-liberty folks is REALLY DANGEROUS to the coalition. This alone would make him unelectable as President.

 

 

 

 

Cosmopolitan libertarian metrosexuals.

Nevertheless, there are many left-libertarians out there who champion abortion and gay "marriage."

Hi there.  I'm a libertarian.  Always considered myself right of center.  I don't champion abortions, nor do I plan to have a gay wedding anytime soon.

I do however hold that the question of when human personhood begins is a matter of conscience that people can hold various good-faith beliefs on.  This makes me pro-choice.

And I consider gay marriages a matter of civil equality,  Insofar as the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses, it should do so regardless of sexual orientation so that gay families can file taxes jointly, have full visitation rights at hospitals, and raise happy families without fear of legal limbo situations such as custody over the children should one of their parents be incapacitated by serious illness or an unexpected death.

Certainly your church shouldn't have to marry gays if it doesn't wish to, but other churches might have different idees.  To each their own.   As with most things, the government should be kept as small, neutral, and uninvolved as practical.

Does this make me a "left-libertarian"?  Am I unwelcome in your tent?

I don't think that makes you a "left-libertarian"

Left-libertarians are actually anti-national defense.  They oppose the military, our intelligence-gathering network from the CIA on down, they oppose the war on terror (and support appeasing Islamofascists), and basically believe that we can become like Switzerland.  In other words they don't live in the real world when it comes to foreign policy.   They also tended to be the purists in the Libertarian party that was most upset with them nominating Bob Barr.

Yes, they are hardcore social liberals like yourself, but that is part and parcel of libertarianism across the politcal spectrum.  Although I consider myself a centrist on social issues, I think you and I agree on a lot os issues.  Our differences would definitely be minor.

I consider myself a left-libertarian

and am quite frankly alarmed at the state of disrepair that our miltary is currently in. I do not like the idea of partisan appointments to West Point, let alone brainwashed religious nutcases (this is NOT, emphatically not, an anti-religion screed. but some religous believers should not be given nuclear codes).

I oppose the war on terror because I don't see any real RESULTS. Show me one actually intelligent terrorist caught in the past few years in America? You'd do better to let hackers catch terrorists, at least they're good at monitoring information. How's that for a lefto libertarian viewpoint?

I consider myself one as well

And I'm IN the military. But of course, only to get closer to the Islamofascists who I hope to one day appeal to.

"Brainwashed religious nutcases"

They are the ones who shouldn't be given the nuclear codes, you mean like most muslims?  The war on terror has prevented another 9/11-style attack on the US, I would call that results.  After the first WTC attack in February 1993 when most left-libertarians we're claiming that treating terrorism as a "police matter" would prvent terrorist attacks (supoorted building the information "wall" between our intelligence-gathering agencies that helped make 9/11 possible) we has the terrorist attacks on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the US embassies in Tanzania and Nigeria in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in August 2000 before the biggie on 9/11.  Yeah that really worked.

to be specific

I mean people who would see the dropping of nuclear bombs in the middle east as a prerequisite to the Rapture that will be coming in a few years. That is their belief, and I will not argue with it. However, I do not believe that belief to be entirely rational, nor should someone with that belief structure be entrusted with nuclear weapons (idealists suck. you want my rant on Carter next?).

I do not believe most Muslims have such a "conflict of interest" related to their religion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know a republican or two who seriously fears a military takeover of American in the near future (okay, he says he's putting on the tinfoil hat, so take him with a grain of salt).

The potential for near term martial law in our cities is growing... (5% last I checked, no need to panik).

I'm sorry, but the only terrorists the Bush Admin has successfully apprehended look to be idiots. There are smarter people out there, aren't there? I believe so, at any rate. So...I do not believe that Bush has kept us any safer, especially considering the bombing of our Embassy earlier this year.

Let alone the gassing of a mosque in Dayton. YAY TERRORISM AGAINST ISLAMS. (sarcasm kills, doesn't it?).

You conveniently forget to mention the ten or so gynecologists dead from Christian Terrorism, in about the same timeperiod. Yes, I'm glad those have died down, but I suspect they will be back again.

I do not believe most Muslims

I do not believe most Muslims have such a "conflict of interest" related to their religion. Correct me if I'm wrong. samsung ln46a650

 

but with the branch of

but with the branch of Libertarianism that only wants small gov't/low taxes and wants to ignore social issues. Commission Ritual Review and Commission Ritual

Well...

I do however hold that the question of when human personhood begins is a matter of conscience that people can hold various good-faith beliefs on.  This makes me pro-choice.

How does that make any sense? If a person believes "in good faith" that a someone is a person at 2yrs old, or 16yrs old, or 40yrs old, could they kill that person and get away with it? And exactly how is the gov't going to tell if that person's belief is really in good faith?

The fact is that at the moment of conception, the sperm and egg come together to form a completely unique individual with its own unique DNA. That idividual deserves the same right to life that the rest of us get.

And I consider gay marriages a matter of civil equality,  Insofar as the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses, it should do so regardless of sexual orientation so that gay families can file taxes jointly, have full visitation rights at hospitals, and raise happy families without fear of legal limbo situations such as custody over the children should one of their parents be incapacitated by serious illness or an unexpected death.

"Civil Equality" can be reached without forcing the gay community's version of marriage on the rest of society. The Fair Tax would solve the tax filing issue, and you can guardianship status to a partner, or whoever you choose in case of illnes or death (assuming they're in a state that allows them to raise kids which is a different issue). As far as the "visitation rights" argument goes, has that ever actally happened? I've heard the argument before, but never shown an actual circumstance where it happened.

Certainly your church shouldn't have to marry gays if it doesn't wish to, but other churches might have different idees.  To each their own.   As with most things, the government should be kept as small, neutral, and uninvolved as practical.

I doubt churches would be exempt. If they'll sue photographers for not taking pictures of a same-sex marriage or force Catholic Orphanages to allow gay couples to adopt from them, I doubt that they'll allow churches to not perform same-sex marriages.

Does this make me a "left-libertarian"?  Am I unwelcome in your tent?

No, you're limited gov't/low tax views are most certainly welcome (not to mention desperately needed). But don't expect your socially liberal views to be accepted.

parasites do not qualify as human

for ethical considerations. If you told me that I HAD to donate my bone marrow (and for the sake of this argument, stay hooked up to provide antibodies for nine months), I'd say that was MY CHOICE.

It is not nearly as cut and dried as you think, I have taken ethics courses, and I enjoy the arguments. Care to debate?

As for visitation rights,

here's one:

http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/18/t1248412-women-sues-hospital-after-be...

http://billandkent.com/blog/2004/09/idaho-gay-dad-denied-visitatio.html

http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_custody

So you can't keep your own child if you're a lesbian. Ain't that somethin'

"Parasites" with Human DNA do qualify as Human

If you told me that I HAD to donate my bone marrow (and for the sake of this argument, stay hooked up to provide antibodies for nine months), I'd say that was MY CHOICE.

In this argument, the you can make the case that you can what you want with YOUR boen marrow. And in this case, you're right, it's YOUR CHOICE what you can do with YOUR MARROW. A fetus isn't yours. It is its OWN BEING, with its OWN DNA, and its OWN BODY and you have no right to force your will on it.

http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/18/t1248412-women-sues-hospital-after-be...

In this case, the hospital was obviously out of bounds and should've accepted the partners power of attorney.

http://billandkent.com/blog/2004/09/idaho-gay-dad-denied-visitatio.html

This one is a little trickier. I don't know all of the specifics of the trial (having only read one blog post about it) but it seems to me that the right decision was made in the case.

There's a lot listed in that last link, what exactly are you trying to point out?

Nonetheless, it is my choice whether or not to let a human being

die.

That is the heart of the argument (that I'm puling from a medical ethics text). The fact that a fetus happens to share some part of my DNA does not bear much relevance. If it is not ethical to compel me to spend nine months of my life (and at considerable risk to my personal health), to save a human being, then it's not right to say that I MUST not have an abortion.

Fetuses are not capable of making ethical decisions -- this is part of my reasoning for why they do not have the same rights as a human being (likewise, the braindead do not have the same rights as a human being).

It remains ethically wrong to deprive someone of rights.

I am not, and I want to make this perfectly clear, saying that the choice of an abortion is something that is cut and dried, only that there is an ethical basis for both choices.

It is wrong that one group is forced to jump through more hoops than another, on the basis of their sexual orientation. That's like poll taxes -- obviously discriminatory.

It's the interpretation of judges in many states that being a homosexual is something that should influence custody and visitation rights. If you are gay, you may be banned from living with a partner, if you wish to keep your children, adopted or not.

Until we can all agree on when life begins

then the abortion arguments are moot.  When I heard McCain/Palin's determination on the campaign trail to leave the abortion decision up to the states, I felt that was not so much a Federalist position as it was moral relativist position, which seemed quite incongruent.   Since no politician wants to touch the real issue of when life begins with a ten foot pole, it's much more politically prudent to say "I'm pro-life but I will not impose my values on my constituents who do not share them" and end the sentence there.

As for the concept of unborn children as parasites, this concept seems to be shared by more than a few Nebraskan parents regarding their teenagers, who have been routinely dropped off at hospitals after they become completely unmanageable.  I understand that several parents of teenage parasites in California are contemplating relocation to Nebraska.

rofl

while I will defend infanticide, in the relatively common cases of "the kid will die before he's ten, because no one can afford the $2 shots to keep him from going blind", I don't think teenagers should be abandoned by their parents.

I mean, by that age, they should be capable of working for themselves, right?

just curious

at what age can children make ethical decisions thereby giving them a right to life?

well, there's a list of a lot of things that together

help psychologists and other scientists determine what a human is.

(It's been a while, but tool usage is probably on there).

Source I'm citing would probably say that 'right to life' starts at 6 months, but you'd need a rather extreme justification for killing a born child (which is still what I'm talking about, mind you. rights are things that cannot be ethically violated. you can still have a strong and compelling argument for "this should outweigh most other considerations" -- just creating a space where there can be a consideration allowing for the ethical termination of a pregnancy).

 

sometimes its right but I am

sometimes its right but I am also confused about it.

online biology degree

yep

Killing and Allowing Death are not the same thing

That is the heart of the argument (that I'm puling from a medical ethics text). The fact that a fetus happens to share some part of my DNA does not bear much relevance. If it is not ethical to compel me to spend nine months of my life (and at considerable risk to my personal health), to save a human being, then it's not right to say that I MUST not have an abortion.

Abortion is actively taking the life of a living being (i.e. killing) not allowing someone to die, so your argument doesn't work.

Fetuses are not capable of making ethical decisions -- this is part of my reasoning for why they do not have the same rights as a human being (likewise, the braindead do not have the same rights as a human being).

Keyword is dead. Dead people don't have a right to "live". And the inability to make an ethical descision isn't necessary to obtain the right to life or any other right.

It is wrong that one group is forced to jump through more hoops than another, on the basis of their sexual orientation. That's like poll taxes -- obviously discriminatory.

1. Poll taxes were created in order to discriminate against a certain group of people. Marriage is an institution created long before the people it supposedly discriminates against even existed.

2. Sexual Orientation isn't poverty (nor skin color, nor gender, nor educational level). It's a lifestyle choice that an individual makes.

Proof?

"2. Sexual Orientation isn't poverty (nor skin color, nor gender, nor educational level). It's a lifestyle choice that an individual makes."

Proof? At face value, given this choice, why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?

"What? I can enjoy persecution and hatred? ALRIGHT!"

it's an interesting argument that you're making.

but flipping a switch is killing someone. That's why a substantial number of states consider that to be murder (speaking of physician assisted suicide). And I could revise my hypothetical so that you are already hooked up, to ask "are you ethically mandated to stay hooked up until the other person can recover or until the other person is dead?"

Plainly speaking, it is OBVIOUS that there are some times when it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. When the mother is at risk, it is her decision as to whether or not to abort. This is still killing the fetus.

I will lose faith in America if the state-mandated medical decision is " kill them both" rather than "kill one so that the other might live."

I do not accord animals with rights. As far as I know, a child has slower development than a chimp, up until the age of about two or so. I do not accord anything with human DNA as having rights, even the right not to be murdered. Because I realize that murdering one baby that will not survive might give ten others the ability to survive.

Man, I'm starting to sound utilitarianist.

I can trace homosexuality back to our earliest texts, including the bible, and through aboriginal cultures, back further.

Flipping the switch on a dead person isn't killing them

but flipping a switch is killing someone. That's why a substantial number of states consider that to be murder (speaking of physician assisted suicide).

1. Flipping the switch on a person who is brain dead isn't killing them. They've already died.

2. As far as assisted suicide goes, no one has the right to intentionally kill a person unless it's in self defense or the person has been convicted of a heinous crime and has undergone due process.

And I could revise my hypothetical so that you are already hooked up, to ask "are you ethically mandated to stay hooked up until the other person can recover or until the other person is dead?

Only if the act of you unhooking yourself would cause the persons death. You weren't ethically (or legally) mandated to give the person bone marrow in the first place. (Killing vs Allowing Death)

Plainly speaking, it is OBVIOUS that there are some times when it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. When the mother is at risk, it is her decision as to whether or not to abort. This is still killing the fetus.

I agree with you here. The mother has the right to defend her own life. This is killing the fetus, but doesn't constitute murder.

I do not accord anything with human DNA as having rights, even the right not to be murdered. 

Not sure how to respond to that one, but here goes. If it has Human DNA then it is Human, which means it deserves the Human Rights afforded by the Constitution.

I can trace homosexuality back to our earliest texts, including the bible, and through aboriginal cultures, back further.

The point I'm making is that Marriage wasn't created to deny people rights, poll taxes were.

so what you're saying is that it is okay

for me to allow someone to die, by not doing something about it, but it is not okay for me to kill them.

The person who sees someone bleeding to death, does not have a moral imperative to call an ambulance? (It's fun to run with ideas, isn't it?)

If it is permissible to kill a fetus, to save the life of the mother -- what about a mother who wishes to terminate her pregnancy? Most abortifacients are pure poisons, as liable to kill the mother as well. And that's not even getting into coathanger abortions.

I do not believe the government should get into the regulation of plants and chemicals, merely to stop abortions (nor marijuana either, but that's a different kettle).

We're getting into legalism now

for me to allow someone to die, by not doing something about it, but it is not okay for me to kill them.

The person who sees someone bleeding to death, does not have a moral imperative to call an ambulance? (It's fun to run with ideas, isn't it?)

Every situation would be different. Given that situation, you would be responsible for helping that person in whatever way you think best, whether that means calling an ambulance or trying to fix the wound yourself. But that's off topic of the issue of abortion.

If it is permissible to kill a fetus, to save the life of the mother -- what about a mother who wishes to terminate her pregnancy? Most abortifacients are pure poisons, as liable to kill the mother as well. And that's not even getting into coathanger abortions.

She can still go to a clinic (or have a doctor come to her in the hospital)  to get a legal abortion in that situation, and not have to rely on back alley abortions.

I do not believe the government should get into the regulation of plants and chemicals, merely to stop abortions (nor marijuana either, but that's a different kettle).

Regualting abortifacients in order to stop abortions would be the same failed logic of regulating guns to stop gun violence. Govt can only punish the crime, not the objects used in the crime.

uhm, sorry. i think maybe I went off subject

I was thinking in terms of an America where we had outlawed abortion.

Would you favor punishing anyone who did things that were dangerous to their child?

If it's intenional

nt

Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual?

I sure don't remember anything like a decision taking place. I remember that first day in 7th grade when Roslyn Cross (nrrn) had breasts and I thought to myself "things will never be the same again".

The lifestyle choice argument is bogus and demeaning. It basically says we're all heterosexual (b/c heterosexuals don't choose to be so) and therefore homosexuals have made a choice which is eo ipso perverse. Conservatives need to move past this position and we will over the course of the next generation or two. Sooner would be better.

Get me an ovulation monitor, stat

This is like the one "scientific" fact hard-line lifers really stand behind.

The fact is that at the moment of conception, the sperm and egg come together to form a completely unique individual with its own unique DNA. That idividual deserves the same right to life that the rest of us get.

There's an awful lot wrong with this. Let me point out two of them:

1. "Moment of conception": Is there in fact a "moment" of conception? Or is it rather just an equivocation?

2. As a practical matter you are making a claim that the state, insofar as it must protect the right to life of any fertilized ovum, has a direct interest in every act of coitus involving an ovulating female within its jurisdiction. How do you propose the state monitor the ovulation cycle of every fertile female? Is that really what you want your government to be doing?

Human life begins at conception

I do however hold that the question of when human personhood begins is a matter of conscience that people can hold various good-faith beliefs on.  This makes me pro-choice.

Actually, that makes you an ignorant person. I hate to be mean and blunt about it, but Obama was feeble and ignorant when HE said it that way with his stupid "Above my paygrade" punt, and you are utteing nonsense with that dance-around-the-reality statement  ...

IT'S A MATTER OF BASIC BIOLOGY WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS. It's not a theology or legal or even moral question. When Pelosi wrong stated that it was a Church teaching about when life began, a bishop leactured her -  No!

Biology 101 tells you this: Human life begins at conception.

I will prove this statement right by asking you if you disagree with "Human life begins at conception" and if you do, to state when precisely it does begin. There is in fact no other answer that makes sense from the biological perspective.

Abortion kills a human being, and after 7 weeks that human being has a heartbeat and brain function. Thus the issue is NOT when does life begin, the issue is what legal and moral RECOGNITION of the RIGHTS of that unborn human being do we decide to accord.

 

while I disagree with what appears to be

your anti choice views,  I do agree with how you frame the issue.  I agree that human life begins at conception or perhaps when fertilized egg implants and begins a viable path of development (not sure what % of fertilized eggs fail to implant.)  Anyhow in my view in the first trimester a women's right to choose whether or not to go through 9 months of pregancy and many hours of painful labor to bring a child in to the world is greater than the fetus's right to develop.  That said I am open and would probably vote in favor of restricting non-health related abortions to first trimester only, which I believe is when most occur.

What I'm curious about is if those with strong prolife/antichoice views see common ground with pro choice camp in increased effort to reduce the number of abortions through a variety of measures.  My one conversation with a person in a "concerned for life" group left me flabbergasted and discouraged, as the women was strongly anti contraception (other than natural family planning) .  Were her views radical or representative of social conservative viewpoint in general?

I think they are relatively representative

but JCFleetguy on Streetprophets might beg to differ. Regardless, as he's more involved in the prolife AND prochoice "reduce abortions" movement, you might ask him directly.

Since 60% of zygotes fail to implant, I'd say that you can't consider them alive until after implantation. Therefore the Morning After Pill is contraception, and not murder. And Science eliminates the need for most abortions! Go Science!

life begins at conception

but until that life satisfies the criteria of a human being, and not a fish, it isn't human. Humans have rights, fish don't. One may call for a moral responsibility about an unborn child, but it is not a right. If it was a right, we would have to lock up any woman who unknowingly stressed herself out after fertilization happened -- say because of rape or incest, if you must, because she violated the right of that zygote to implant itself in her uterus.

Life begins at conception. Humanity begins much later. There are specific criteria that distinguish human from animal, and a seven week old fetus has much more to do with a fish than a human.

I do not accord any rights to a fetus, though I may say that someone has a responsibility anyhoo.

By your logic, 60% of human babies die before they are EVEN IMPLANTED, and we should really do something about that. There are better ways than reducing the number of abortions, methinks.

Stick to a limited govt platform

Well said. 

We need to stick to a limited govt and fiscally conservative platform if we want to be sucessful.

And I cannot say it enough, we must not let the Dems and the liberal establishment define who and what we are as we have allowed them to do the past (6) years.

 

That's not the problem

Huckabee and Palin are trying their hardest to define the Republican party as being to the extreme of social conservatism.  That the media runs with this is unfortunate, but you can't blame the media and the Democrats for this image.  The Republican party has been using social issues as a way to win elections for awhile now - and it worked! - but at the cost of driving a lot of people away.  I think that history is on the side of the social liberals.

Sure, we can blame the media

This is nothing but a media creation in the first place, pure and simple. You are either delusional or a part of the liberal Left to imply such a thing.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Are we talking libertarian?...

...or Libertarian Party?  The LP has never notched out a foothold for itself  which should tell us what?  Not something the GOP should want to waste time on.  While I'm not a big Huckabee supporter, he did garner a few votes during this election cycle, I'd say.  He made a footprint.  Unlike Bob Barr.  So do we really want to move in the libertarian direction?  I don't think so.

The problem w/Mike Huckabee is the same w/the rest  of the GOP Hierarchy.  He's detached from the average Middle American.   He simply misses the point as do most of the GOP choices we have right now.   I like Huckabee and appreciate his quick wit but he's not saying the things I want our hear.   But then no one else in the GOP is, either.   DD 

DD, I was thrown off of Ron Paul's forum...

...for stating that most Republicans are Libertarians who have been mugged by reality. How cool is that?

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Wow, really?

I swear the LP/ Ron Paul movement has become an ideological cult.  Why is it when the left becomes cult-like (vis-a-vis Obama) or the LP, no one in the intellectual chattering classes don't have a problem with it, but God-forbid (pun partially intended) if the conservative movement becomes friendly to genuine old-time Christainity suddenly that is a bad thing?

No...

They aren't just "friendly to christianity" - the republicans have literally DEFINED THEMSELVES as little more than the culture warrior, Jesus loving, Christian based party in America.  That's the whole POINT here... the people saying we haven't been socially conservative ENOUGH are smoking crack... its been the single defining aspect of the party.

"Average" people (we'll just use average here to mean people from middle class backgrounds who may or may not be religious but tend to believe faith is personal and hate in your face Jesus people, may live in suburbs or urban areas, are educated by not doctors, etc) who would normally be predisposed to republicanism are completely repulsed by this image in the party.

Like it or not, we are now viewed as a group of white men with southern twang in our speech who aren't just religious, but actively use government to promote religiosity, and don't like gay people...

Were the social conservative agenda to be EXACTLY THE SAME as it is now, but its rhetoric turned down a bit to give the impression that we're... uh... oh I don't know... serious about governing a pluralistic nation with common sense good governmet solutions... this party would crush the democrats every year.

That's what people like Huckabee don't get.  People may be religious and friendly to social conservative causes, but have a SEVERE distaste for public culture war rhetoric day after day after day - especially when it essentially becomes your ONLY argument for why we should vote for you.

I'm the best example of this... I'm Catholic, religious, from a suburb, have a degree, am married, have kids... and I CAN'T EFFING STAND THIS BULLSHIT... I'm so sick and tired of seeing a guy with an R next to his name talk, and in utterly predictible fashion, he's dropping the Jesus stuff everywhere, and if he ever talks about anything else, its either 9/11 or al-Quaeda...

...the "average" people I spoke of earlier hear that and say, "good lord... yeah, we get all that - but do you give a flying crap about putting together some common sense good government solutions for my life?  Boy, I'd love the government off my bad, and MAN I'd love to see them balance the budget... can you PLEASE talk about those things once and a while?"

We're losing the mainstream, and it isn't because conservatives need to "sell out" to win those people, its that our rhetoric panders and caters to the smallest, most annoying groups within the party... and they do it to suck up to them because they are afraid of what would happen if they DIDNT pander... not realizing that for every one of them you jettison... you probably pick up two new voters who ARE aligned with your philosophy (we aren't talking about "moderating" the party with big spending, high tax liberals... we're talking about regaining the people that used to trust us with ethical government, reform and budgets)...

I'm just so sick of Huckabee and his disciples... its everything that's wrong with this party right now... he wins the nomination in 2012 and I'm out...

Huckabee does not represent the majority of Christians...

who happen to be conservatives.  He represents a fringe group that the media loves to portray as representing the majority of Christian conservatives.  He is not, they are just a fringe group who are loud and proud about their faith, much like the so-called gay rights activists who are throwing a bitch fit (and attacking Christains who supported Prop 8) because they didn't get their way at the ballot box on the gay marriage issue out in California do not represent all gay rights activists.

Huckabee, didn't get a majority of christian conservative voters, they we're divided between the many of GOP candidates during the primaries.  The ones that did support him, who we're like James Dobson, in that they couldn't support someone like Fred Thompson (whom I supported and thought was the best conservative candidate in the race) because he held a strict federalist view on the abortion issue.  Most Christians like myself have a very private faith, we don't believe in using the power of the state to proselytize people, we would rather live by example than use government to impose morality and we are getting a little sick and tired by the militant atheists on the left who have decided that conservative Christians are the one group who should not be allowed to participate in the political process.

All we need to do is to tell the Huckabees in the party to tone it down and "get real" so to speak.  While encouraging the fiscal conseratives and libertarians to speak up about the issues that are facing the country.  I think the best quote on the subject comes from a commenter on RedState:

JoeG November 19th, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. CST (link)

This libertarian isn’t going

Everything that I stand for is pretty much is opposed by the democrats. They are anti-libertarian.

They support stifling of opposing viewpoints.

They ignore the existence of the second amendment.

I do not for one minute think that I’m about to be told how to worship by social conservatives. I do believe that liberals wish to create a national Church of atheism.

I believe that democrats will whine about the supposed violations of privacy by the Bush administration, then turn right around and abuse governmental power to dig on every private detail of someone who dares to ask a question of their nominee that the nominee doesn’t like.

That said, I’m more than happy to embrace a candidate like Jindal or Palin. I am certain Jindal can attract the social conservatives all the while not being a sellout on taxes, social spending and economic regulation. I’m a little less certain on Palin, but have a very good feeling about her.

I can not ask social conservatives to support [Sic] Juliani or Romney. In turn, I ask that they understand why I can’t support someone like Huckabee.