I’m Not Conservative

When I first got to the other site, it was a bit if a rude awakening. My view of what conservatism was was very different from the very moderate ideas of The Other Place. It has taken me some time to figure out what was so off, but I think I have enough for a broad sketch.

Modern Conservatism is very libertarian. It promotes the ideas 0f free markets and individualism to extremes that the founding philosophers of these ideas did not hold to. Their promotion of limited government is more in keeping with traditional conservatism, but there appears to be a very undefined blurring between federalist and anti-federalist in that small government thinking – and small seems to predominantly be limited to domestic governance, not foreign policy.

My concept of conservatism was some blend of latent nationalism and tradition that, from my limited exposure, sounds Burkean. It is borne of the Chesterton adage that we don’t remove fences without knowing why they are there in the first place. I’d like to add understand why they were necessary to that. It seems that as long as we know there’s a bull behind that fence, it’s ok to remove it, regardless of how destructive that bull is. Maybe he’s Ferdinand. Maybe he’s not. (This is how I view modern conservatism).

To me, the Old Testament principles given to Israel to preserve their nation are not just precepts meant to benefit Israel. Yes, God took special interest in her preservation to work out his will, but it is not obvious to me that other nations are excluded from following similar procedures in order to preserve their nations. The rules governing Israel to preserve her integrity, faith, cultural values, and independence ultimately defined my concept of nationalism and, ultimately, conservatism. In fact, whenever Israel strayed from these precepts, she suffered calamity. It was only God’s faithfulness to this nation that preserved her where others ultimately disappeared. His grace, not some special quality she possesses.

If I believed, then, in the historical significance of America as a Democratic Republic, constitutionally constrained government for the benefit of securing the rights of Americans and that she is worth preserving, then it only serves that following Isrsael’s rules for preserving her nation should be used to preserve ours.

That is, that citizenship should be constrained to only those who have demonstrated faithfulness to what America is, that she was defined as to be the inheritance to the descendants of the founding population, that we would promote cultural values and a common moral foundation that provide the necessary philosophy to preserve our constitution and governance, and that we would limit foreign entanglements so as to maintain our independence for the benefit of our own people.

Along side that overarching view is the anti-federalist side of it which seems to be far more in keeping with Locke than libertarianism’s radical individual and that is that, through free association, local governments very well may reflect the character of the people who have chosen that government. By keeping the federal government tightly defined and limited in scope, states and municipalities may be more broad in their governance as the people see fit.

I’ve been doing a bible study by a DC pastor, David Platt. He is the author of Radical and is an incredibly challenging pastor on what it means to be a Christian. He said something that surprised me, because I think nations and the church have suffered by failing to acknowledge such a simple, but hard, truth:

The church as a whole defines who is a member of the church. A member does not define themselves as a member. (Derived from 1 Corinthians 3. https://radical.net/sermon/defining-church/)

From this concept comes the preservation of identity as a group; the preservation of values, beliefs, and teachings; and from where the concept of church discipline springs.

If this idea were to be recaptured, the church and the western nations could revive.

In a nut shell, modern conservatism is thoroughly beholden to such a concept of individualism and free trade (which isn’t the same as free markets) that they have thoroughly convinced themselves that all else can be tolerated in service to that. This was demonstrated by the TPUSA demonstrations.

The reaction to that by myself and apparently quite a few others is the idea that conservatism used to include an awareness that there was a common culture, values, and mores that made limited government possible and that having a national identity creates the means by which you preserve those foundational values.

13+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

79 thoughts on “I’m Not Conservative”

  1. Hypatia:
    But eventually even that falls away; and the person is transformed back into the hairless, toothless, incapable, incontinent  being he once was, who can utter nothing but screams and wails of irrational rage and terror.  As a society, we’re there—and that despite the continued function of the organism’s individual cells, its systems of digestion and elimination and respiration.

    This may be where you are, but I don’t feel remotely close to that.  Feel free to tell your own kid to curse God and die, but I’m in it for the longer haul.

    If your kids had met my kids during the Civil War there’s a good chance they would have tried very hard to literally kill each other.  For all the current troubles I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that level of conflict.

    1+
    avatar
  2. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Kevin Schulte:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    But then what are we to conserve? …  I am at a loss for what is meant to be conserved.

    Again, many of you will bring up “the ideals of the Founding”. Well, there isn’t even any real consideration of what those ideals were, here, among a handful of people. You want to conserve them as some foundation on which to govern 320 million people? Good luck with that. The ultimate problem with “conservatism” is the same problem pointed out by Hayek all those decades ago–at the end of the day, it merely wishes to conserve that which a generation ago it found repugnant. When you seek to advocate for your society that is based on tradition (whose tradition?) while at the same time maintain this empire comprised of 320 million people, you are going to find that your vision cannot endure. Why? Because we are too big for it to endure. Your ideal of tradition is not going to be the same as that of the immigrant population (Chinese, Mexican, what have you). It is not going to appeal to the “modern man” either because part of being “modern” is rejecting that which is traditional. You are seeking to conserve something that is appealing to maybe 30 percent of the 320 million people, which is 96 million people. It just seems to me that if you truly wish to conserve traditional “America” (no such thing ever existed) then the best way to do it would be to downsize. To seek out those communities that wish to live in such a society and completely sever all political ties to those who do not. Now let’s see how popular an idea that is in the following comments.

    Great points Robert.

    So….  Moving forward,  what kind of nation should we be trying to build ?

    I would start by supporting those things which would make us smaller. Cal-Exit is something to look in to. The point is to build communities and not nations.

    We have to build nations.

    It is no good trying to balkanize the USA without setting up successor nations.

    The Left will not permit us to re-establish States; they have become too accustomed to crushing independent thought via the power of central government.   So we will have to replace the central government with a collection of successor governments.   The trick will be to craft a suitable balkanization.

    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    1+
    avatar
  3. MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. Mate De:

    Hypatia:

      Since the 1790s when we got our constitution, there have been certain things we could agree on.  Freedom of speech and religion.

    I reject the premise of this. How do you know that most Americans in the 1790’s agreed to this? How do you know that the country wasn’t as divided on opinions as it is now?

    All we know is what historians have recorded and like now there were probably swaths of opinions that were never recorded. There was always religious and cultural infighting, but the government wasn’t powerful enough to mess with people as much as they do now.

    There was a Civil War, about 70 years later. What was going on in the country then? There were all sorts of opinions flying around from everyone who was alive at the time. But how much do we actually know.  It is the same as now, we only get what those who report on this stuff tell us. There is so much stuff we don’t know

    Then about another 60 years later, was WWI. Which is a war that Wilson lied to the public to get us into.  Look into what was going on during the Wilson administration. It isn’t that dissimilar. Also again we don’t know the whole story because it is told to us through a specific lens.

    The great thing about now is that we can see the media sausage being made. We can see in real time when they construct a narrative and watch it crumble. It has ALWAYS been like that, and the point of it is to put people in a state of panic or despair. Don’t let them do that. Trust in the Lord, don’t put your faith in princes. We’ve been through worse times than this and have come out the other side. 

    The best way to achieve a robust nation that can confidently move together with shared values would be to form a Christian nation.  Of course, a multitude of questions come immediately to mind.   Can we limit the theology to traditionalists?   If not, the nation will be prone to the rot from within that the Left will import.   Should we choose to be Protestant?   That does not solve the problem; neither would a choice of Catholic.

    America has been working for 230 years with a semi-articulated compromise sometimes called “civil religion.”  At the root of our current distress is the collapse of civil religion in America.   The Left marched through the old “mainline” Protestant denominations, destroying them.  The Left is now ascendant in the Church of Rome.

    There is no recovery of a civil religion that will hold together.

    The best we can do is to re-establish smaller nations in areas where the old civil religion still works.   So, how do we carve America into smaller countries, preserving viable areas from among the red states?   Bear in mind that the Left will fight for every college town.

    Also, in the balkanization process we contemplate, bear in mind that the big blue cities will require significant agricultural economy-sheds.   Will the red states retain their blue cities?   Wouldn’t we rather cut them loose?   How do we resolve such matters.

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. A front-page article in today’s WSJ about drug pricing made put me in mind of this thread. I know it sounds off topic but stay with me. The title is Obscure Model Puts Price On Healthy Year of Life. It’s about an outfit called Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Basically, it’s a way for the managerial state to determine which drugs are worth developing and prescribing.

    While I recognize the need to take fiscal considerations into account when making decisions about healthcare, these decisions are increasingly taken out of the hands of individuals. The final solution, if you will, is the complete takeover of healthcare by the state, leaving all decisions about life and death in the hands of bureaucrats. Even in our current mixed economy of healthcare this is well underway.

    This relates to the Stina’s post in that decisions are abstracted from the concerns and values of individuals and their communities. The same kind of thinking is at work in discussions about foreign trade and immigration. The only question that matters is, how does it affect the national bottom line? Nowhere is there an accounting of how different individuals might make their own tradeoffs about risks and quality of life.

    Ironically, the free market is the mechanism that facilitates accounting for these other factors. Even though it is based on financial considerations, it is in such a way as to allow each person to account for non-financial factors. It’s not for nothing that von Mises used the term praxeology. The people at the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review are practicing economics when they should be practicing praxeology.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  7. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    That means you do know how delusional this sounds?  Like “I have peepee-gate tapes” delusional?

    1+
    avatar
  8. Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    That means you do know how delusional this sounds?  Like “I have peepee-gate tapes” delusional?

    Well you may think it delusional, but that doesn’t make it so no matter how juvenile you are in your insisting it is.

    0

  9. MJB is right: we need a “civic religion”.  Deism did just fine.  It’s ideal, really.  It’s the specific revelations  which cause all the sectarian violence .

    If we could just get back to a consensus that it is “self-evident” that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….doesn’t that say it all?   It’s  a positive restatement of the  Ten Commandments (and other such codifications)   which are phrased as prohibitions. Live free and pursue your own pleasures! (And it goes without saying:respect your fellow humans’ inalienable right to do the same, meaning, inter alia, don’t kill them, don’t steal their property, don’t seduce their spouses,etc., because that’s the only way this can work.).
    But I don’t think we can get back to it.  Some are born happy, some achieve happiness—and some have “happiness” thrust upon them. By their  government.  Whether they like it or not. Which means they don’t get to choose, the government will let them know when they’re happy.

    Witness Woodrow Wilson, big Prog in a (then relatively) small pond.  He gave a Fourth of July speech wherein he advocated ignoring the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence: y’know, the inspiring stuff about the Creator, nature, etc. If you do that, what’s left?  Buncha grievances against King George!  Guess what: we got rid of him.  S’over! But we don’t want Americans relying on themselves, or Nature, or The Creator.  The King is dead, long live the Federal government!

    1+
    avatar
  10. Damocles:

    Hypatia:
    But eventually even that falls away; and the person is transformed back into the hairless, toothless, incapable, incontinent  being he once was, who can utter nothing but screams and wails of irrational rage and terror.  As a society, we’re there—and that despite the continued function of the organism’s individual cells, its systems of digestion and elimination and respiration.

    This may be where you are, but I don’t feel remotely close to that.  Feel free to tell your own kid to curse God and die, but I’m in it for the longer haul.

    If your kids had met my kids during the Civil War there’s a good chance they would have tried very hard to literally kill each other.

    I’d like to have seen that…..

    0

  11. Hypatia:
    MJB is right: we need a “civic religion”.  Deism did just fine.  It’s ideal, really.  It’s the specific revelations  which cause all the sectarian violence .

    If we could just get back to a consensus that it is “self-evident” that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….doesn’t that say it all?   It’s  a positive restatement of the  Ten Commandments (and other such codifications)   which are phrased as prohibitions. Live free and pursue your own pleasures! (And it goes without saying:respect your fellow humans’ inalienable right to do the same, meaning, inter alia, don’t kill them, don’t steal their property, don’t seduce their spouses,etc., because that’s the only way this can work.).
    But I don’t think we can get back to it.  Some are born happy, some achieve happiness—and some have “happiness” thrust upon them. By their  government.  Whether they like it or not. Which means they don’t get to choose, the government will let them know when they’re happy.

    Witness Woodrow Wilson, big Prog in a (then relatively) small pond.  He gave a Fourth of July speech wherein he advocated ignoring the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence: y’know, the inspiring stuff about the Creator, nature, etc. If you do that, what’s left?  Buncha grievances against King George!  Guess what: we got rid of him.  S’over! But we don’t want Americans relying on themselves, or Nature, or The Creator.  The King is dead, long live the Federal government!

    Doesn’t your last paragraph provide the reason that Deism does not work as a civic religion?

    Deism allows us to be forced to celebrate homosexuality and gender confusion.  Deism has no basis for drawing lines regarding abortion, euthanasia, marriage, sexual sins, etc.   Deism has only the vaguest encouragements to righteous living, and is negotiable on every point.   There will be Deists on opposite sides of all these issues, leaving the majority without limits.  Majority will would be imposed on the minority.   Which, in fact, is what the Democrats are doing.

    0

  12. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    MJB is right: we need a “civic religion”.  Deism did just fine.  It’s ideal, really.  It’s the specific revelations  which cause all the sectarian violence .

    If we could just get back to a consensus that it is “self-evident” that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….doesn’t that say it all?   It’s  a positive restatement of the  Ten Commandments (and other such codifications)   which are phrased as prohibitions. Live free and pursue your own pleasures! (And it goes without saying:respect your fellow humans’ inalienable right to do the same, meaning, inter alia, don’t kill them, don’t steal their property, don’t seduce their spouses,etc., because that’s the only way this can work.).
    But I don’t think we can get back to it.  Some are born happy, some achieve happiness—and some have “happiness” thrust upon them. By their  government.  Whether they like it or not. Which means they don’t get to choose, the government will let them know when they’re happy.

    Witness Woodrow Wilson, big Prog in a (then relatively) small pond.  He gave a Fourth of July speech wherein he advocated ignoring the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence: y’know, the inspiring stuff about the Creator, nature, etc. If you do that, what’s left?  Buncha grievances against King George!  Guess what: we got rid of him.  S’over! But we don’t want Americans relying on themselves, or Nature, or The Creator.  The King is dead, long live the Federal government!

    Doesn’t your last paragraph provide the reason that Deism does not work as a civic religion?

    Wha’?!  We don’t have to speculate: it has worked, for 0ver 200 years.

     

     

     

    Deism allows us to be forced to celebrate homosexuality and gender confusion.

     

    [no I don’t think so.  That’s where “nature” comes in.  And BTW Christianity can be shoehorned into this “celebration”, too: witness Peter Pansy]

    Deism has no basis for drawing lines regarding abortion, euthanasia,

    [inalienable right to life]

    marriage,

    [weddings never have been, nor should they be, the state’s affair.]

    sexual sins, etc.

    [not the state’s  bailiwick]

    Deism has only the vaguest encouragements to righteous living,

    [which is great, it’s a Big Tent]

     

    and is negotiable on every point.

    [No,see, if we sum it up as “live and let live”. The “let live”part is equally important.  Do not force your belief on others.  That’s not negotiable.]

    There will be Deists on opposite sides of all these issues,

    [oh, if only!]


    leaving the majority without limits.  Majority will would be imposed on the minority.   Which, in fact, is what the Democrats are doing.

    Surely this last is a political matter rather than a religious one.  And our Deist Founders  did work to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

    0

  13. About “tolerance”. This reminds me of George Washington’s words, usually taken out of context: “America has no quarrel with the Mussulman”.. yeah, but he goes on (paraphrasing, for the nit-pickers among us): But, quit holding our ships for ransom or we will form a Navy and whup the halal  outta you!  Done and done!

    1+
    avatar
  14. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I would start by supporting those things which would make us smaller.

    Exactly.  What you have here is a scaling problem.  This happens all the time in engineering.  If you take something that works well at one scale, say a mechanical watch (hey, I live in Switzerland), and you try to make it five times bigger, it won’t work at all.  All kinds of things go out of whack.  The mass of parts scales as the cube of their linear dimension, while their area scales as its square.  The inertia goes with the mass, while velocity goes as linear dimension, so things don’t move correctly.  Flexure, which can be ignored at the smaller scale, becomes significant and things don’t fit or work correctly when in motion.  If you try to run at the same speed as the smaller watch, nothing works since the energy of moving parts increases with the mass (dimension cubed) and the square of the velocity, and you can’t start and stop things and they’re damaged when they collide.  The result is a total dog’s breakfast.  You can build a tower clock which is five or ten or twenty times the size of the watch, but its design has to be totally different in order to work at that scale.

    Human societies are no different.  What works for a family doesn’t work for a city state.  What works for a city state doesn’t work for a modest size country.  What works for a modest size country doesn’t work for a continental-scale railroad-era empire.  (In fact, there is little evidence such empires ever work at all on the long term, especially if they are multi-ethnic and regionally differentiated: see Rome, Byzantium, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Austria-Hungary, Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, the European Union, and the United States.)

    You can either try to invent some new kind of structure which works at a very large scale (perhaps China’s emerging cyber-totalitarianism might be an example, but they have the advantage of ethnic homogeneity and you wouldn’t want to live there), or break up dysfunctional structures which have been scaled beyond the capacity of their institutions.  Or, just wait: these structures break up all by themselves when their internal contradictions surpass the ability to patch them up with chewing gum and baling wire.  The break-up may be relatively benign (Soviet Union) or horrific (Yugoslavia).

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  15. And in your clock analogy, culture is a component. It should be without argument that we are now too big for the US to function as it did when smaller when the most important part no longer functions at the current size. All other discussions—deism, phases, etc—are just whistling past the graveyard.

    1+
    avatar
  16. Phil Turmel:
    I ran across this today and thought it pertinent:

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/research-finds-conservatives-are-more-happy-generous-and-purposeful-than-liberals/

    TL/DR:  The happiest/most generous/most publicly involved people in any society are the conservatives.  And not just any conservatives, but the social conservatives.

    I’m not conceding the conservative label just because some pointy-headed pundits have abused it.

    I’m not conservative. I’m Catholic.

    1+
    avatar
  17. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    That means you do know how delusional this sounds?  Like “I have peepee-gate tapes” delusional?

    Well you may think it delusional, but that doesn’t make it so no matter how juvenile you are in your insisting it is.

    Juvenile comparisons are a feature of Ratburger and provided to you at no extra charge.  Read your terms of service!

    Now look at this is the most grown-up matter possible.  Rounded to the nearest percentage point, CalExit has 0% support in California and 0% support in the United States.  Thinking CalExit is the first step of your plan to restore sanity to the country is cookoo-for-coco-puffs delusional!

    0

  18. Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    That means you do know how delusional this sounds?  Like “I have peepee-gate tapes” delusional?

    Well you may think it delusional, but that doesn’t make it so no matter how juvenile you are in your insisting it is.

    Juvenile comparisons are a feature of Ratburger and provided to you at no extra charge.  Read your terms of service!

    Now look at this is the most grown-up matter possible.  Rounded to the nearest percentage point, CalExit has 0% support in California and 0% support in the United States.  Thinking CalExit is the first step of your plan to restore sanity to the country is cookoo-for-coco-puffs delusional!

    You have completely mischaracterized what I said. I did not say it was “the first step of [my] plan.” I merely said it is something to look in to, meaning is there something there that should be supported and propelled in other areas. One might also look to similar movements in Vermont and Texas. You might also consider that in 2014, nearly a quarter of Americans polled supported the idea that a State could leave the Union.

    Finally, I just completely reject the notion that, because it doesn’t poll well, the idea that the United States is too big and that maybe States/Communities should explore political division with the center is a “cookoo for coco puffs” notion. There hasn’t been one notion in this tread that seems any better, and in fact one could argue that they are actually worse because at the end of the day they involve the use of force to impose those ideas on people who simply reject them. What is your solution to the current situation while remaining in the current structure? Is that solution going to garner support in San Fran or the the Upper East Side? Who is being delusional here?

    1+
    avatar
  19. By the way, you might want to do the grown up thing and actually look into something before you speak:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/374870-california-exit-support-grows/

    As of 2017, approximately 30 percent of Californians supported the idea. And it was cleared to begin the process of gathering signatures to be placed on the ballot in 2018. So put your hyperbole aside and try to engage in a conversation.

    EDIT: Originally I stated that it was cleared to be put on the ballot. It was actually cleared for signatures to be put on the ballot.

    1+
    avatar
  20. Robert A. McReynolds:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/374870-california-exit-support-grows/

    Russian collusion!

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    As of 2017, approximately 30 percent of Californians supported the idea.

    There’s a big difference between the number of people who tell a pollster they favor an idea such as Calexit and the number who would actually vote for it in a serious referendum that had any chance whatsoever of passage. Most of the Trump-haters will tell the pollster they favor Calexit just because they hate Trump; it has nothing to do with the long-term future of the state. Also consider that your average low-information voter has no idea what Calexit entails. Again, if it ever were seriously discussed, lots of the folks who said yes would change their votes to no.

    Nobody serious takes this seriously. We’re along way off from this kind of civil-war-like situation. When Trump leaves office, Calexit will be soon forgotten. In the meantime, the haters will simply have to suck it up for another five  years.

    2+
    avataravatar
  21. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    Damocles:

    MJBubba:
    Cal-Exit sounds like the logical place to start.   If that can be worked out, then the rest can be worked out.

    You guys realize how delusional this is starting to sound, right?

    No more so than thinking one can push onto a population of 320 million people a society that well over half that number reject.

    That means you do know how delusional this sounds?  Like “I have peepee-gate tapes” delusional?

    Well you may think it delusional, but that doesn’t make it so no matter how juvenile you are in your insisting it is.

    Juvenile comparisons are a feature of Ratburger and provided to you at no extra charge.  Read your terms of service!

    Now look at this is the most grown-up matter possible.  Rounded to the nearest percentage point, CalExit has 0% support in California and 0% support in the United States.  Thinking CalExit is the first step of your plan to restore sanity to the country is cookoo-for-coco-puffs delusional!

    You have completely mischaracterized what I said. I did not say it was “the first step of [my] plan.” I merely said it is something to look in to, meaning is there something there that should be supported and propelled in other areas.

    No, I think you missed MJBubba’s comment to which I was replying.

     

    One might also look to similar movements in Vermont and Texas.

    My family moved to Texas in 1732 and we’ve lived through three secessions.  I’m very familiar with people who are sincere about secession.  A lot of people mouthing off to a pollster following Trump’s election isn’t it.  Who would be left to secede after they’ve all moved to Canada?

    You might also consider that in 2014, nearly a quarter of Americans polled supported the idea that a State could leave the Union.

    Finally, I just completely reject the notion that, because it doesn’t poll well, the idea that the United States is too big and that maybe States/Communities should explore political division with the center is a “cookoo for coco puffs” notion. There hasn’t been one notion in this tread that seems any better, and in fact one could argue that they are actually worse because at the end of the day they involve the use of force to impose those ideas on people who simply reject them.

    OK, you’re officially promoted to nutty-as-nutella. Congratulations!

     

    What is your solution to the current situation while remaining in the current structure? Is that solution going to garner support in San Fran or the the Upper East Side? Who is being delusional here?

    I think the trouble we’re going through now is necessary. One of the many sides fighting will become dominant, and the other sides will cope in one way or another.  I believe there’s enough oomph left in the country that it will be a side friendly to faith, freedom, and liberty.

    0

  22. Some of this is textbook ad hominem. Why can’t you just debate the issues instead of going against the mental states and characters of people? Is it because it is easier to throw out a pejorative than to explain why an idea is wrong? When you take the shortcut everyone sees you are “pounding on the table” and not taking the conversation seriously.  Stupid people call people stupid.

    2+
    avataravatar

Leave a Reply