Friday, March 24, 2006

Victory over ideology? Or are there shared principles?

John Mecurio writing in National Journal about Illinois,

Putting a higher priority on victory than ideology, GOP primary voters chose Topinka, a polka-dancing, cigarette-smoking, foul-mouthed moderate with ties to disgraced former Gov. George Ryan (R), over two buttoned-down conservatives vying to challenge Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), in what has become perhaps the GOP's biggest pick-up opportunity this year. That fact alone is shocking. Remember, it's been just two years since the Alan Keyes fiasco.
Further down Mecurio goes into the strategy differences in suburban districts like the 6th and the 8th voiced by Sarah Chamberlain Resnick and Pat Toomey, quoting Resnick saying,
...the issue is not necessarily demographic shifts, but the GOP's shifting focus onto wedge issues like same-sex marriage and abortion rights, which alienate swing voters.
I've been going over this moderate vs conservative split in my head for days now. I don't know how real it is. Much of it doesn't make sense to me as an outsider.

I thought Brady bridged it. I heard him on WBBM radio with Craig Dellamore, and Brady handled the differences well. He was clear and principled on abortion and same-sex marriage yet realistic about what the GA would give him to work with as Governor.

So lacking time to write anything big, allow me to periodically toss some bullets on how some of these issues could be bridged. There are principles most conservatives, and I think most Illinois voters, share.

Let me start with this quote from Mark Rhoades over at Illinois Review,
To be conservative does not merely mean to check off boxes from a list of "conservative" positions dictated by the media or liberal political scientists and academics. It means first of all to passionately believe be in political and economic freedom for all, to respect the rule of law, promote prosperity through free markets, and place necessary limitations on government which is by definition a legal monopoly on the use of force and coercion.
Add this quote from Justice Scalia,
Scalia decried the practice by judges to dictatorially reinvent the constitution to suit their ideals. "You want the death penalty? Persuade your fellow citizens" to enact changes in the law, he said. "You don't want abortion? Persuade them the other way. ... Judges have no more capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral."
Standing on these two good sets of conservative principles, my Radical Republican platfrom running for Governor or Congress would include:

---Make the Conservative case for same sex marriage

Forget the Democrats compromise for civil unions. Allow marriage. It's not an inalienable right. It's not something that should be constitutionalized one way or the other. Judges shouldn't decide it. But there is a conservative case to be made for it. Voters and legislatures should decide it. Our culture is moving to accept it. But in turn, advocates of gay marriage should recognize the problems facing families and our kids and the dangers of our hyper-sexualized media.

---Say Roe v Wade should be overturned
Tell voters it was a very bad decision. A horrible over reach by Judges and Justice Scalia exactly right when he said Judges no better able to judge morality of abortion then any other citizen. Illinois should prepare for it. The debate should start. I don't know where to draw lines. I'd agree on far more restrictions. I admire the pro-live advocates and distressed by the pro-choice people I read. But the common principle every conservative should advocate is Roe v Wade should be overturned.

And that's what I would suggest for Resnick's two wedge issues. I wouldn't use them as wedges. I'd make a principled stand because I think that's what voters want. (Check Authenicity Matters Most).

Let me add a third, which Brady mentioned on his WBBM interview: Intelligent Design. It's up to local school boards to decide what's science and what should be taught and how.

I'd add school prayer here too. I heard Pat Moynihan respond once he had never heard of a kid hurt by saying a prayer in school. Someone should be able to stand up in the cafeteria and say grace. Non believing kids can thank midwest farmers if they feel God is an issue. There is common ground here and Brady was right saying School Boards should make the call.

Sorry for rambling on here... it just seems there is much common ground here and its senseless to fight so bitterly about much of it.

10 comments:

Bill Baar 10:19 AM  

Did you read the Authenicity Matters link Prez? It's a Democrat arguing just the opposite I think.

A lot of people voted for Bush inspite of disagreeing with him on policies but because of leadership.

My wife and I both voted for Gore. I remember standing in the yard with her right after 911 staring at the sky because it was so quiet without airplanes.

She had always disliked Bush but she told me she was sure glad Gore wasn't President now.

Anyways, I'd like to keep this thread focused on Illinois.

I think Topinka is authentic, voters know her and see her that way... one question is to find common ground on some social issues. The core principles offer ways to unite.

Extreme Wisdom 11:36 AM  

Core Principles? Topinka has none, unless one counts destroying any conservative influence in the IL Rep. party.

Though I'm sure I don't agree with P. Palmer on much, I agree that voting for some one because 'they offer the best chance of winning' is mostly a fools errand.

In this case, it is particularly foolish, given that the 'conventional wisdom' that JBT was the 'strongest candidate' is laughable on its face.

The entire party just lost its most potent issue.

Anonymous,  12:37 PM  

What is so authentic about Topinka? Her hair is fake, her teeth are fake, her entire image if fake.

She's one of the good ole boys, which is why the establishment rallied around here, just like they rallied around Stroger.

Topinka won't clean up government, nor will he have the power to do so with a Democratic House and Senate. All we'll get is four years of wise-cracks. Is that what Illinois needs right now?

Anonymous,  4:52 PM  

Agree with states deciding abortion and gay marriage. However, intelligent design creation is not science and should be kept out of science classes where experiments are conducted to find out if things happen the way a testable hypothesis says they should. I don’t mind schools offering world religion courses. Perhaps they should be mandatory, given the growing religious intolerance we’re seeing in this county and rest of the world. I’m also fine with schools providing a moment of silence to allow students to pray, meditate or twiddle their thumbs.

Yellow Dog Democrat 7:30 PM  

Bill - a very thought-provoking post. I agree with you that Brady would have made a very strong candidate, although I think he was over-reaching on school prayer and creationism.

Your platform is full of contradictions though. The same conservative argument in favor of same sex marriage is the argument against school prayer, creationism, and banning abortion. The principle is that government authority should be limited to the public sphere, and private decisions should be left to private individuals. A local school board's establishment of religion is no more tolerable than if it is done by Congress. Intelligent Design is just creationism by another name -- it is religion, not science. Intelligent Design has a place -- in the home or in the church -- but not in a taxpayer-funded science class.

I agree that Roe v. Wade is a tricky compromise, but the courts do have a constitutional obligation to protect us from government intrusion. Yet a compromise was necessary because there is alot of grey between what we all agree upon and what none of us can agree upon. Jill Stanek says that human life begins at conception because the Bible tells her so. I believe that in a society where few people can agree on a definition of "human life" and reasonable doubt about precisely where it begins and ends, it would be cruel and unjust to tell a rape victim she's been sentenced to nine months of carrying her rapist's child, or to tell an 86 year-old cancer victim she can't choose to end her pain and leave this world, because "human life" is so precious it must be protected at all costs.

What liberals and conservatives do agree upon is that we want abortion to be rare -- we just disagree on how to get there. Conservatives want to use the power of government to coerce people not to have abortions; liberals want to use the power of government to help people not get pregnant in the first place, or make alternatives to abortion (like adoption, single-parenting) more viable if you do.

Again though, a very thought-provoking post.

Anonymous,  11:55 PM  

Sorry guys but there is no conservative argument for gay marriage.

There's a libertarian argument for gay marriage, drug legalization, no limits on speech (or sex on TV), etc.

Oh, and Larry, it is a role of government to support the free exercise of religion in society. It's one of the tenets of our civilization.

Libertarian arguments are attractive on face value, but at their extreme they are anarchic by their very nature. They represent the opposite of order, which is one of the basic building blocks of civilization.

Societies cannot grow without order. Families can't function without it.

Humans don't evolve into better beings. We just develop better societies and civilizations that build new baselines for the next generation to measure up against.

The modern-day attacks on the family structure weaken society by lowering what is expected and diminishing the ability of families to raise the next generation.

It may take a whole village to raise some kids, but at the very least it always takes two parents - a mother and a father. That's the biological necessity and the sociological necessity. Changing something overnight that's worked for five or ten millenia isn't wise.

Bill Baar 8:11 AM  

Larry, Thanks for stating the conservative case for gay marriage. It's the one I agree with.

There are contradictions in my original post. The unifying principle is Scalia's statement that Judges aren't better equipped to make moral judgements then anyone else.

You'll find many conservatives who are opposed to same sex marriage, but oppose an amendment to the constitution making marriage only a union between one man and one women for just this reason. It's a moral judgement best left to voters.

I don't have a problem with a teacher leading kids in prayer. I can imagine a lot of people having issues with it though. I wouldn't push it.

But I agree with Social Conservatives when they say there is way too much trash in our culture, and it has a bad effect; it creates bad behavior. It's not a trivial problem. It hurts us.

I agree there are limits to what gov can or should do here. My response to religous conservatives is to ask them if they think their churches are doing enough? If maybe they're the ones dropping the ball; don't blame the gov.

But gov shouldn't be hostile to religion either. That's not what secularism or seperation of Church and State is about.

There is a place for faith based programs and they can be made to work within the constitution.

The Christian Socialist label for Bush is interesting. Tony Blair is a Christian Socialist. It might fit Bush. Interesting thing about New Labour Socialists like Blair is they are firm believers in Markets.

YDD, thanks for the kind words. Illinoize is an interesting blog because it does pull from a wider spectrum then most. That's good... I think Illinois Republicans have a lot to learn from the national debate going on now among Democrats. The roles are reversed in Illinois; getting crushed does offer opportunities despite the pain.

So it's always good to have a mixed group. Never know when you'll stumble on a good thought you would have missed keeping yourselve in the family. It might help you seize those opportunities.

Anonymous,  9:30 AM  

The idea to deal with some of these issues via the legislature or referenda rather than via the judiciary has merit. If nothing else it is pragmatic, possibly ending some of the rancor by giving the public a sense of ownership over whatever decision is reached. However, we must still be careful when going that route. Is it a Good Thing to ostracize a group or criminalize an activity based on the opinion of 51% of persons who show up to vote? Especially when those people can go their entire lives without be personally, directly affected by those issues if they so choose? Just look at the situation of the Christian convert on trial in Afghanistan this week; an extreme example, certainly, and one unlikely to be repeated here, yet it highlights the dangers of giving the state power to enforce one group's sensibilities.

On another note...sorry, local districts should not have the ability to decide what is science, it would be like giving them the power to decide the value of 1+1 or whether the Sun has risen. YDD nails it: any school should be free to teach Intelligent Design, but only in the context of philosophy or social studies.

Bill Baar 9:59 AM  

What is the value of 1+1?

Does the sun rise?

Bill Baar 2:10 PM  

I really agree with you Larry.

Brady's position was these decision best left to local school boards. He came out against No Kids Left Behind too, because he felt it took too much away from the local boards.

That's really the principle that I think is widely shared by Republicans and probably most others in Illinois.

Sorry Ian if I seemed flip about 1+1 and the sun. I don't know what the heck science is. When I took Freshman Biology it got awfully political with the Greens just starting.

So I don't mind a little politics in Science. I'd have kids read some of William Jennings Bryan's essays on Darwin.

There is a balance to be struck in all of this. I don't pretend to know where it is. But I think the principle of local control is a fundamental.

It's a shame if conservatives sit out voting for JBT because she is on what they see as the wrong side when in fact all republicans agree with the principles.

Whether or not JBT was an unredemable part of Illinois's combine in the past; I don't know.

What's really important now is what she can become.

So, I am not without hope, that she will not be business as usual for Illinois politics.

I don't think she can win without being bold and giving us new ideas.

She's got the bold personality. I'm not sure if she has the ideas yet.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP