Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Conservatives High Water Mark or Beginning of the Flood?
Christine Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, agrees with me that the "moderate" Republicans who opposed their party's vast majority, and made the deal with Democrats regarding the President's judicial nominations, are "radical moderates." As my last post points out, we could also call them zealots or "extreme" something-or-other because they know what they believe and are willing to fight for it.
That is as far as I agree with Ms. Whitman. She predicts that the Schiavo case was the high water mark of the social conservative movement. She repeats the lie that most Americans disapproved of the President's and Congress' attempt to save Terri Schiavo. She states that the memorandum of agreement between the Republicans and Democrats is the beginning of a new and beneficial moderation in American politics that returns American politics to a "sensible center."
While I might agree that moderation in American politics might overall be a good thing, I will never agree that moderation on all issues is good. Moderation is simply another word for tolerance...which has become the greatest of all virtues in this America, and is the cause of some of its greatest sins. There are some things for which moderation must remain anathema. Moderation on abortion. Moderation on the value of human life. Moderation on homosexual normalization, alternate lifestyles, and non-traditional families. Moderation on rejection of Christianity in public and in government. Moderation in these issues is out of the question. Abortion, valuing death over life, homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, non-traditional families, rejection of Christianity: these things are not sensible.
Ms. Whitman may wish that the moderates have returned to power so that liberal social gains will become permanent. Wishful thinking Ms. Whitman. The power of the zealous moderates is temporary. The circumstances that brought them together will soon evaporate while the values that motivate the majority of the Republican party are eternal. This is the beginning of the counter-revolution of the social conservatives, not the end. ¶ 2:55 PM|
That is as far as I agree with Ms. Whitman. She predicts that the Schiavo case was the high water mark of the social conservative movement. She repeats the lie that most Americans disapproved of the President's and Congress' attempt to save Terri Schiavo. She states that the memorandum of agreement between the Republicans and Democrats is the beginning of a new and beneficial moderation in American politics that returns American politics to a "sensible center."
While I might agree that moderation in American politics might overall be a good thing, I will never agree that moderation on all issues is good. Moderation is simply another word for tolerance...which has become the greatest of all virtues in this America, and is the cause of some of its greatest sins. There are some things for which moderation must remain anathema. Moderation on abortion. Moderation on the value of human life. Moderation on homosexual normalization, alternate lifestyles, and non-traditional families. Moderation on rejection of Christianity in public and in government. Moderation in these issues is out of the question. Abortion, valuing death over life, homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, non-traditional families, rejection of Christianity: these things are not sensible.
Ms. Whitman may wish that the moderates have returned to power so that liberal social gains will become permanent. Wishful thinking Ms. Whitman. The power of the zealous moderates is temporary. The circumstances that brought them together will soon evaporate while the values that motivate the majority of the Republican party are eternal. This is the beginning of the counter-revolution of the social conservatives, not the end. ¶ 2:55 PM|
