A Truce in Culture Wars as Voters Focus on Economy

TownHall.com ^ | 12/30/2010 | Michael Barone

[1010RD]

Neverdem’s analysis is correct. The science is on our side and abortion is the nations biggest civil rights issue awaiting in the shadows. We’re winning on that count and you cannot look at aging progressives who currently hold sway. We’ll see the same movement in abortion as we’ve seen in the 2nd Amendment.

The science is on our side as regards homosexuality. Only it is a story that hasn’t been and isn’t told. It’s available here and given that it is NPR this makes a perfect link to a young college liberal. The truth outs eventually: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/all/play_music/play_full.php?play=204

From a mental and physical health perspective homosexuality is a disaster. There is no “gay” gene. It’s a mental condition and needs concern, caring and treatment.

If the TEA Party went after these issues they could be marginalized. If we first are the party of economic success the rest will follow. We can even argue now, that much if not nearly all of the financial meltdown is do to a moral vacuity not seen in a long time in America.

It’s the political entrepreneurs we must target and the rest will follow. When government is no longer a profit center it’s myriad supporters will find themselves in self imposed poverty and melt away.

Vouchers will win the day even faster, if they can be added to the educational arsenal that includes home schooling, charter schools, private schools and tutors.

[neverdem]

There is no truce on social issues. I think the word you are looking for is surrender. Our Republican leaders have pretty much surrendered on the social issues while the left continues to push forward with its agenda. If there’s a temporary cessation of hostilities, it’s entirely on the political right. The left certainly hasn’t entered into this so called truce that Barone imagines.

That's not true. How do you think we got the Coburn Amendment allowing concealed carry in national parks, etc.? I wouldn't confuse RINOs in the Senate with Republican leaders. I want social conservatives to argue against abortion, gay marriage, etc., but I don't them to dilute the Tea Party message. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[CitizenUSA]

I think you should reread the article. Barone writes: “The fact is that there is an ongoing truce on the social issues, because for most Americans they have been overshadowed by concerns raised by the weak economy and the Barack Obama Democrats’ vast increase in the size and scope of government.”

The fact is, we’ve made zero progress on overturning Roe v Wade and, in fact, Obama almost certainly stacked the court with even harder left, social justice shills. The fact is, open sodomy is now the president’s policy for the military, and leftist judges keep pushing the gay agenda throughout the nation.

What’s the definition of a truce? It’s a cessation of hostilities on both sides. I understand your point that the Tea Party should focus on things that bring political victory, and financial issues are on everyone’s minds. Barone is correct in that regard. However, he’s flat out wrong in the statement I quoted. There is no truce as shown by the progress the left has made on several key fronts in the last two years.

[Aetius]

Social issues don’t have to be the focus. Most voters don’t want them to be. The Tea Party should probably stay focused on fiscal matters. On all of this we agree.

But talk of a compromise or truce on social issues always strikes me as something to be suspicious of, because the Left will never stop agitating for arrogant, power-hungry judges to impose their views on the entire nation. Obama and (let’s say) nominee Mitch Daniels could both agree in 2012 to focus on the ‘big’ issues, but that isn’t going to stop the Courts.

The Left always gets to have it both ways. They use the Courts to subvert the legitimate democratic channels to settle issues, and then when the Right fights back by simply insisting that the people or legislature (the horror) decide things, they are accused by the Left (and backed up by the mainstream media) of pursuing ‘wedge’ issues.

And consider DADT; the one instance where the Left implemented its social agenda properly. Did the Democrats ever get accused of pursuing ‘wedge’ issues, and of being ‘divisive?’ Yeah I didn’t think so.

So anyway, I can understand a guy like Mitch Daniels wanting to make 2012 about fiscal, economic, and foreign policy issues. But he (or anyone like him) MUST make clear that a ‘truce’ does not mean surrender to the Left’s judicial strategy. He must make clear that he will only nominate Scalia-like judges, and that he would do whatever is in his power to thwart the almost-inevitable judicial imposition of gay marriage.

That’s all I’m saying.

[neverdem]

And consider DADT; the one instance where the Left implemented its social agenda properly.

I probably agree with you on most ideas, but passing routine legislation by a Congress that was dumped on Election Day is a travesty during a lame duck Congress. In everything done during that lame duck Congress was against the will of the people. War and emergency funding are the only matters that deserve any consideraton for funding and policy when any government has a right to act, IMHO, for emergency laws and funding