The Conservative Circular Firing Squad

Scott Walker hired Liz Mair to be a communications outreach staffer – and while I can’t say that I know Ms. Mair (we are Facebook friends and have met some years back – I think at CPAC in 2007), everyone who knows her says she’d be splendid in the position. I have no doubt that this is true. As it turns out, however, Ms. Mair had to very swiftly leave the Walker campaign – from what I’ve read, she’s made some disparaging remarks about the whole Iowa caucus system and that caused a ruckus. On the other hand, Erick Erickson over at Red State is holding that Christian conservatives went after her because of her liberal stance on some social issues. In the end, it was probably more the latter than the former – making fun of Iowa is almost a political standard…but being socially liberal is much more problematic.

The other day Ms. Mair took a break from her Lenten fast from Facebook to post the following:

I’m breaking my rule against no social media during Lent to share that I’m a little bit proud and excited that my name is on this amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The amicus brief in question was in support of legalization of same-sex marriage. By judicial fiat. Votes of the people be damned.

To this post, I responded with words to the effect of, “so, by doing this what, exactly, are we conservatives supposed to be conserving?”. My comment isn’t there – so perhaps I forgot to post it. No matter. The main thing is that I find it astonishing that conservatives – of any stripe – do this sort of thing. Same-sex marriage is not just a stand-alone thing. It is not something that once done will be over and done with. It is not, no matter how much one might want to believe, merely a matter of whether or not the privilege of marriage shall be extended to same-sex couples. It is just another tool in the liberal armory. Liberals have many tools – and this one is to be used to further break down the traditional family but even more important, to the left, to attack Christianity. For a conservative to support the imposition of same-sex marriage (especially via judicial fiat!) is to be working for the destruction of conservatism. In theory same-sex marriage might be within the tolerable eccentricities of mankind – it might be something, that is, that a broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic allows to happen…but we are not living in broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic. We are living in the tail-end of a Republic which is mere steps away from becoming a Third World banana republic.

If we just give the left this, then they will use it – and they’ll use it against Christians. It is already being so used in Europe…and if you think liberals will actually care about the 1st Amendment, you’re nuts. Heck, if you’re even of the opinion that when push comes to shove that the Supreme Court will protect the 1st Amendment rights of Christians, you’re still nuts…suppose it happens? Ok. So the Court carves out an exception which allows Christian churches to not perform same-sex marriages…but that would only be after a massive, lengthy and expensive legal fight against the left. And, meanwhile, anyone who can’t afford such a battle just retreats into silence…including political silence. I don’t know how our more libertarian minded conservatives expect to survive when we more socially minded conservatives are forced into the political wilderness.

I’m sure Ms. Mair is sincere about it. Fine. A thousand points for adherence to personal conviction – but minus a million for lack of political sense. We are in a crisis in this nation and the very survival of the United States is the stakes we play for over the next 10 to 15 years. To be sure, she’s just one person who got caught up in the political meat grinder – and she seems a tough enough person to go through it without too much trouble. I’m sorry it happened to her – I wish we had a Republic where tolerance was the order of the day. But we don’t. Liberals forbid tolerance – they are out to destroy us, social and libertarian conservatives, alike. It is time to firmly choose a side – time for all of us on the right to cease the circular firing squad and keep our eye on the ball. We can’t work across the aisle. We can’t generate an alliance to advance one liberal thing and expect to follow up by advancing a conservative thing. For goodness sakes, people: do any of you on the right backing same-sex marriage think that liberals will now come to you to help advance school choice? Go ask your liberal allies about it. See if they are willing.

It is all or nothing – either we go all one way, or we’ll go all the other way. The left has set up the battle just like that – and giving them concessions is akin to surrendering a hill top wherein they now dominate our lines of supply. Every issue has to be taken in consideration to its position in the overall battle. Will an action help or hinder the advance of the overall right? If it will, then do it – if not, then put it aside and concentrate on some other aspect of your agenda which will.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “The Conservative Circular Firing Squad

  1. Cluster March 19, 2015 / 9:20 am

    Considering what Obama said the other day that Islam is part of the “founding fabric” of our country, shouldn’t the left be mindful of their position on gay marriage? You know, in the name of tolerance and diversity? And knowing Islam’s position on gay marriage, wouldn’t the legalization of that union create more terrorists?

    Also, I want to say that I think “Black Olives Matter”! I don’t think it’s fair that the more chic green olive gets all the love at fancy cocktail parties, on greek salads, etc. while the black olive is relegated to sit beside the pepperoni on a discount pizza. It’s not fair.

    No piece. No Justice.

    • M. Noonan March 19, 2015 / 10:48 pm

      If they were sane, yes – but the left is just plain on crazy. Heck, Hillary’s great, new plan is for adult camps to force us to have fun…a bizarre revival of the Nazi’s “Strength Through Joy” program…organized “fun” which, of course, keeps us from asking uncomfortable questions…and, hey, while we’re at the camp learning to celebrate diversity, we can also pick up our turnip rations.

  2. shawny2011 March 19, 2015 / 2:07 pm

    Looking past what she actually posted, my first thought was as to whether or not her view (on same sex marriage) actually represents that of Scott Walker in her official capacity as his communications staffer. And second, while in that position, was she unwise, unaware that whatever she communicates does reflect on Walker? Yes, I know she was supposed to be “splendid” something and that Walker trusted his and her judgement enough to hire her which was obviously a mistake. But she’s not important and now she’s history, while the more important questions about both Walkers views and his judgement remain. I have been a great supporter of Scott Walker thus far. But at this critical point in our country’s history, we must have a solid conservative candidate to rally behind. One who consistently draws a clear distinction between conservative principles and those of the left which continue to damage and debase our society and Christian values. I fear we have also fallen into the trap of accepting that the government or the courts should decide for us on many of these “social issues” as it has only become a battering ram in the lefts toolbox when presidential candidates should be judged on character, loyalty, leadership skills and the ability to honor their oath of office to enforce the laws, protect and defend the Constitution.

    • M. Noonan March 19, 2015 / 10:45 pm

      Ms. Mair, herself, suspects that it was Democrats who trolled through her Twitter feed (80,000 tweets!) to find the offensive comments…and I tend to think she’s right, because only liberal trolls are willing to spend that much time on what must have been a tedious task. She tweets a lot – to put it into perspective, Matt and I have been doing the @worstpresident account for two years and four months, and we’re still under 10,000 tweets. It could well be that Team Walker was unaware.

      As for Walker, someone pointed out the other day that a really smart politician chooses his battles. Reagan is our gold standard – but if you go over his record, you’ll see that he was selective in which fights he’d engage in. Walker choose not to get into a fight about whether Iowa is a good idea (I’m in the distinct minority which believes it is – it is very useful for the candidates to have a relatively inexpensive race filled with people who work for a living as the launch pad…the Establishment doesn’t like it because, well, its a State full of people who work for a living).

      Walker has raised some eyebrows by ditching his one-time support for amnesty and starting to say kind words about renewable fuel standards, which benefits Iowa farmers as corn is used in the fuel…very inefficiently and expensively, it should be noted. Did he trim? Of course he did – he is, still, a politician and he wants to win. Does it make him toxic? Only to the fanatic purists we are better off without.

  3. Retired Spook March 20, 2015 / 7:38 am

    Two words: mandatory voting.

    Well, I have three questions: (a) what will be the penalty for NOT voting, (b) who will enforce it, and (c) what will happen to people who resist? “Ve haf vays of making you vote” comes to mind. And, of course, does anyone not think that the next step will be telling everyone WHO to vote for?

    • Cluster March 20, 2015 / 9:17 am

      C’mon Spook, there will only be one name on the ballot. And voting will be part of the fun camps which will include a heavy dose of sensitivity training.

    • M. Noonan March 20, 2015 / 10:06 am

      My larger point about Obama’s Mandatory Voting in Hillary’s Mandatory Happy Camps is that it actually opens up whole, new worlds of voter fraud…if everyone is registered to vote but, let’s face it, still only about 60% show up, the Democrats now have a gigantic pool of unused votes to stuff a ballot box with.

      It is my opinion that turnout in the heaviest blue districts – those which given 90%+ of their votes to the Democrats – probably have very little actual turn out. People who can’t bestir to get themselves basic education and employment when it is offered to them and who sit around on welfare waiting for the EBT card to load up are not going to be very motivated to get out and vote (you’d have to believe that people who won’t go for free education will suddenly get all civic-minded on election day). To me, the proof of the fraud is any candidate getting 90% of the vote. Except in freakishly bizarre circumstances, we should never see that…nor should we see what we often see in heavily blue districts: 90% or better turn out. It just isn’t possible in a real vote…it is only possible when Stalin, or some of his modern-day political descendents, are counting the votes. Mandatory voting is mandatory voter fraud.

    • tryvasty March 23, 2015 / 2:56 am

      Well, it’s pretty easy to look up how they do it someplace it already happens, such as in the totalitarian state known as Australia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

      Yep, shocker there. You get traffic ticket-sized fine.

      I’m not necessarily personally in favor of compulsory voting, but let’s be real. You guys don’t want it because it would mean a whole lot more liberals in office, especially during midterms. It’s cool, you’re allowed to want things for strategic reasons, it’d just be nicer if you’d talk honestly about it and not pretend that you’re actually worried that mandatory voting being a step on the way to dismantling democracy

      • Retired Spook March 23, 2015 / 7:20 am

        I’m not necessarily personally in favor of compulsory voting, but let’s be real. You guys don’t want it because it would mean a whole lot more liberals in office,

        Why are you “not necessarily in favor of compulsory voting?” Probably for the same reason I’m not — because it’s “compulsory”, and “compulsory” is not compatible with a free, representative republic. There are twice as many people in this country who identify as being conservative, as opposed to liberal, so the only way more liberals would be elected is if liberal candidates promised more free stuff. It certainly couldn’t be that their ideas are more attractive, because their ideas have never worked.

      • M. Noonan March 23, 2015 / 9:25 am

        It would be the final nail in the coffin for democratic governance in the United States – the purpose of mandatory voting is, indeed, to ensure more liberals in office, but they won’t get there via voting: they’ll get there via voter fraud.

        The people who don’t vote right now will still not vote when its mandatory – there is no liberal out there who is seriously going to send the police out to arrest someone for not voting…and if you think that any liberal will withhold benefits (EITC, EBT, etc) because the person didn’t vote at the last election, you’re nuts. As there will be no effective sanction against those who don’t vote, all mandatory voting will do is create a massive pool of fake votes to stuff a ballot box with.

      • tryvasty March 23, 2015 / 7:56 pm

        The thing missing from that poll is that people that self-classify as moderate overwhelmingly vote Democrat. It’s fairly easy to see if you start looking at the demographics of non-voters:

        http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/

        As the headline states, the Pew Research Center finds that we get poor turnout from “Younger, More Racially Diverse, More Financially Strapped” demographics.

        And again, we don’t have to make up doomsday scenarios to try to predict what would happen if there were compulsory voting. You can just look at other places in the world where it happens.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

        They get about 95% turnout with traffic ticket-sized fines for not showing up at the polls. That makes it pretty unfounded to assert that “The people who don’t vote right now will still not vote when its mandatory”. There is no secret police state we’re going to accidentally slip into because we make a bunch of people get off of their asses once every couple of years to vote.

        As to why I don’t think we should do it, it mostly has to do with my belief that a large amount of our problems are already derived from under-informed voters. While I do believe that making voting compulsory would cause people to show up to the polls, I also believe you’d then be causing the least interested and politically engaged section of our population to start exerting influence on our elections. While it would admittedly get people who hold more of my views into office in the short term, I can’t help but believe that it would cause more problems in the long term.

      • M. Noonan March 23, 2015 / 10:00 pm

        The purpose of mandatory voting in the United States is to allow Democrats to more readily stuff ballot boxes.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 1:56 am

        That’s basically nonsense. Given that compulsory voting can empirically be proven to cause real people to really go to the polls, it would decrease the potential for voter fraud rather than increase it. If I go to the polls and really vote, it is much harder to cast a fake vote on my behalf than if I sat at home on my ass.

        The only thing I’m not entirely sure of if you’re just trying to use dishonest arguments against it to convince people it’s a bad idea or if it’s really about setting yourself up excuses so that if it were to happen, you won’t have to deal with the realities of the current and trending demographics of the country.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 1:13 pm

        I’m very well-versed in the history of our Great Republic – as it is a proposal from a Democrat President, his sole purpose in suggesting it is to increase the opportunity for voter fraud to better ensure the continued power of his party.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 5:48 pm

        Please provide the empirical evidence that compulsory voting decreases the potential for voter fraud. That way we can be sure you’re not propping up a dishonest argument.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 10:40 pm

        M. Noonan:

        So your explanation is that even though you have no rational basis for how it would mechanically work, it must be about voter fraud because anything Obama wants that relates to altering our electoral system must necessarily be in service of voter fraud because he’s Obama?

        You are welcome to your unthinking hatred, I guess.

        Cluster:

        It seems pretty intellectually lazy to make bold claims about an evil plan to steal elections and then demand people provide proof that your half-baked idea isn’t true.

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2015 / 12:59 am

        I know the history of the Democrat party: voter fraud is endemic to it. How can you possibly say my opinion indicates hatred? Do you know the history of the Democrat party?

      • Cluster March 25, 2015 / 7:37 am

        Now you’re making another dishonest argument. I never mentioned an “evil plan” (interesting though that you put it in that context). I am simply mentioning the fact that Obama’s black skin color was widely celebrated and aggressively promoted, even though he is technically half white. It seems a little strange to me that ideologues such as Obama and Melissa Harris Perry (to name a few), so strongly identify with, and promote their black lineage rather than their white lineage, of course it serves a purpose for them in the leftist circles they operate within.

  4. tryvasty March 23, 2015 / 3:03 am

    I’m curious. Do you think that the same-sex couples looking to get married see it as “another tool in the liberal armory” or a way “to attack Christianity”? What about their friends and family? What about the Presbyterian Church? http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2015/03/22/presbyterians-give-final-ok-gay-marriage/25181981/

    Or are you talking about some club of Liberals with a Capital L that includes none of these groups of people? I have a little trouble following how broad your generalization about motivations is supposed to be.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2015 / 9:32 am

      I make no comment about the tiny number of gay people who wish to get married – but the issue, itself, is the tool…by legalizing same-sex marriage, liberal fascists will then use the fact of legal marriage to attack the Church.

      As for the Presbyterians – they have suffered a 42% decline in membership over the past 20 years. This is what happens when a church decides to go along with the world rather than serve Christ.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 2:06 am

        Critically analyzing the Presbyterian church is a fun deflection, but it’s really besides the point. The question is whom you are including when you talk about The Liberals doing this, and The Liberals being motivated by that. Because clearly there are a great number of groups of people that you would consider liberal and who support gay marriage who are doing it for reasons other than to dismantle Christianity.

        But I suspect you know all that, and it’s just inconvenient for the narrative of the big bad boogey man, The Other to struggle against. Because when you admit that when you say “liberals”, you’re referring to all sorts of different people with different beliefs, backgrounds, and motivations, you cease being able to label, bundle, and dismiss people without bothering to try to understand them.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 1:22 pm

        You brought up the Presbyterians in an effort to demonstrate to me that some Christians are ok with same-sex marriage – I merely pointed out that the Presbyterians, by conceding to the world, are disappearing. I know there are plenty of people who claim the name of Christian who also are in favor of same-sex marriage – I point out that they are wrong to do so. Support for same-sex marriage is not compatible with any semblance of actual Christianity. Any Christian who does decide to combine the two will inevitably become ever less Christian over time – just as all those Christians in the 80’s who decided to become pro-abortion are now hardly recognizable as Christians, at all. The battle between the World and the Church goes on – it will continue to go on until the End. The World hates the Church and always has – and always will, until the End.

        But the point I am ultimately making here is not about whether same-sex marriage should be legal, or not – in fact, my position on marriage is that any form of State-sanctioning of marriage is contemptible and should be ended. My marriage is between me, my wife, God and our Catholic Christian community. The State has no legitimate role to play in it – and, in fact, State-sanctioning of marriage was just another attempt to undermine the Church to begin with. So, have done with it – and if there’s a religion out there which wants to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, then I can only say that I am supremely indifferent. The point I’m making is that I know our liberal fascists like the back of my hand – and its not that they may try to use same-sex marriage to oppress Christians but that they already are, and will do more and more of it as time goes on. Because the left, being entirely enslaved to the world, hates the Church.

      • Retired Spook March 24, 2015 / 7:42 am

        Because when you admit that when you say “liberals”, you’re referring to all sorts of different people with different beliefs, backgrounds, and motivations, you cease being able to label, bundle, and dismiss people without bothering to try to understand them.

        I think most Conservatives here, when we refer to Liberals or Progressives, are referring to what might better be described as Leftists — true believers who honestly want to transform our representative republic into a European style social democracy; people who believe that our Constitution and our system of government are flawed, that the Constitution is a set of negative liberties and doesn’t specify what government “should” do on our behalf. Those people we understand like the back of our hands.

      • Retired Spook March 24, 2015 / 3:16 pm

        and its not that they may try to use same-sex marriage to oppress Christians but that they already are, and will do more and more of it as time goes on. Because the left, being entirely enslaved to the world, hates the Church.

        Mark, given that Christians have become the most persecuted religious group in the world in the last few years, and given that that persecution will eventually make it to our shores, have you thought about what you’ll do when it comes to your door? You’re just enough younger than I am that the possibility is all too real. I’ll hopefully be taking the final dirt nap before it happens to me, but I can certainly see Christianity going underground in, say, the next 50 years. And I agree, mainstream Protestant denominations — Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. will continue to see their numbers dwindle as they continue to adopt more and more Leftist social positions.

        My wife and I grew up in the Methodist Church and left it back in the early 80’s for a variety of reasons. We have some good friends who attend a Methodist Church about 10 minutes from us. The went to Sunday service a while back and discovered that the pastor had taken the American Flag from next to the alter and placed it in a corner in the back of the sanctuary. My friend inquired as to why, and the pastor said he was afraid it would offend people to have it in such a prominent place. My friend came unglued — threatened to leave the church, and, more importantly, cancel his financial pledge. The next Sunday, the flag was back up front.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 6:28 pm

        Here’s a story, then, to warm the heart – recently the Boy Scout troop at my parish ran a successful fund-raiser to erect two flag poles out front: one to fly the Papal flag, the other to fly Old Glory. We’re not quite dead yet!

        On the other hand, there are moves to de-facto ban the Boy Scouts…

        I’m not sure how it will come out – shortly before my dad died in 2009, he gave me the opinion that he was glad to be out of it. He didn’t think there was too much chance of things going on as they are for too long. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it – but so are those who remember the past because those who forget always seem to outnumber those who remember.

        My wife and I actually had the discussion on what we’d do is martyrdom stared us right in the face – the massacre of those 21 Christians in Libya being the catalyst for the discussion. My Mrs wasn’t entirely sure she wouldn’t be shouting praises to Allah to get out of such a thing. I pointed out that even if she did, it would not necessarily be a sin because things done under extreme duress have no moral value to the person who does them. I only hope if the time ever comes that I’ll have the wit to commend my soul to God and ask Our Mother to stand with me in the trial. Not for all of us is this sort of courage:

        By July 22, the Republicans controlled most of Toledo and sought the surrender of the Alcázar by artillery bombardment. For the duration of the siege, the Nationalists engaged in a passive defense, only returning fire when an attack was imminent.

        Colonel Moscardó was called on the telephone by the chief of the Worker’s Militia, Commissar Candido Cabello, on the morning of July 23 in Toledo and told that if the Alcázar were not surrendered within ten minutes, Moscardó’s 16-year-old son, Luis, who had been captured earlier in the day, would be executed. Colonel Moscardó asked to speak to his son and his son asked what he should do. “Commend your soul to God,” he told his son, “and die like a patriot, shouting,‘¡Viva Cristo Rey!’ and ‘¡Viva Cristo Rey!’ The Alcázar does not surrender.” “That,” answered his son, “I can do.” Although a legend has grown up that Luis was immediately shot, he was not in fact shot until a month later “in reprisal for an air raid”.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 5:33 pm

        I really don’t care one way or the other about how Christian or not the Presbytarian Church is. The point is that they almost certainly self-identify as Christian, and therefore are unlikely to be motivated by causing the downfall of Christianity. As are any number of other groups who speak out in favor of gay marriage.

        My point is there is no group of people of any size identical enough to each other in mindset for you to know them “like the back of your hand”. Hell, there isn’t even one gold standard for a European social democracy to transform into if that’s what you think the plan is.

        If you want to talk about say specifically the DNC in those terms, that would make a lot more sense, because they are an actual organized political structure. But any time you try to extend that to nebulous groups of Them, you start lumping together a bunch of people that have never met and could probably find plenty to argue about if you put them in the room together.

        It’d be like me claiming to know Christians like the back of my hand, which lumps you together with the Presbytarians that you seem to be so unhappy with. At the end of the day, it’s just not a useful categorization. It’s much more interesting for instance to listen to you talk about the dangers of large businesses and the benefit of government intervention to incentivize keeping businesses small than to try to fit you into some preconceived template and miss out on a point where we could find some common ground.

Comments are closed.