Conservatives

We know by now (only too well!!) that there are "Republicans" and Republicans, and "conservatives" and conservatives. We also know the "country club Republicans" (e.g., RINOs) try to avoid social issues like the plague, even though social issues are what motivate so many conservatives. The "country club Republicans" much prefer to concentrate on economic issues (thus feeding the stereotype of Republicans as people who are only concerned about money, money, money---which alienates so many voters who are conservative on social issues but somewhat "moderate" on economic issues, and which alienation of "Reagan Democrats" helps to prevent the party from growing).

These "country club Republicans" are actually more libertarian than Republican (libertarians are very conservative economically but very permissive on moral issues). The "country clubbers," though, know only a tiny percentage of Americans self-identify as libertarian and know that the Libertarian Party attracts few voters, so to maximize their power the "country clubbers" have infiltrated the much larger and more influential Republican Party and insidiously work to make it follow a more libertarian agenda.

For example, in a Dec. 29 column (http://www.aei.org/article/102944), Michael Barone, of the American Enterprise Institute, unbelievably 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 Obama Democrats' vast increase in the size and scope of government."

Gee, what small world is he living in? Isn't he aware that lame-duck Democrats just imposed some of their extremist values on this country, as, for only one example, by repealing the military's commonsense "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Apparently the Democrats didn't get Barone's memo about the truce. Barone is also sending Democrats the message that they probably can have more success imposing their bizarre values on this country if they do it in times of economic hardship, because people will be distracted away from thinking about social issues by more immediate economic concerns. And writers like Barone will be there to help Democrats with their propaganda about truces on social issues.

Instead of foolishly observing a one-sided truce over social issues, we should be using to our advantage the anger lame-duck Democrats have generated in voters who believe in traditional values. For example, instead of Barone writing about non-existent truces he could be persuasively explaining to voters why repealing "don't ask, don't tell," and why pandering to homosexual extremists in general, is wrong. But Barone seems to want to call a timeout and let Democrats consolidate their "gains" on social issues. With conservatives like Barone we're lost. We should be using the momentum of the last elections to press our agenda rather than timidly pulling in our horns. After all, the Democrats didn't achieve their regressive "gains" by being timid. And if all we're going to be concerned about are money issues, then let's stop calling ourselves conservatives and Republicans and just admit we're radical libertarians.

Here is another mind-bending quote from a different Dec. 29 column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-1230-goldberg-20101229,0,6984724.column). "Conservative" Jonah Goldberg writes: "I also find it cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too." (It should be noted, for the record, that Goldberg writes for the Chicago Tribune, which is a fanatically pro-homosexual newspaper. Its numerous pro-homosexual editorials are, from a certain perspective, howlers in that the "logic" they use is downright laughable.)

To Goldberg, just because some homosexual relationships are committed somehow excuses them (despite the fact that thinking people have known for centuries that homosexual activity is immoral and a bad legal precedent). There is not a lot of logic in pro-homosexual people. To them, heterophobic homosexuality---i.e., sexual hangups or inhibitions to normal heterosexual sex---is evidently okay and is somehow NOT indicative of a psychological disorder; while "homophobic" heterosexuality---i.e., opposition to disordered homosexual deviations by well-adjusted heterosexuals---is verboten. (What a surreal, topsy-turvy world confused pro-homosexual people live in---and try to force normal people to live in.)

How did we get to this point, where so many self-styled Republicans/conservatives are basically unconcerned about the efforts of Democrats to corrupt the country's morals, to impose their radical "values" on this country?

A couple of business writers, Carol S. Pearson and Sharon Sievert, might be able to offer some insight. They have noted that in an "organization where it has become normal to sacrifice one's personal life and one's ethical standards to career success...people with deep-seated psychological problems or serious addictions often rise to the top because pathology actually is a pre-condition for making the extraordinary personal sacrifices and ethical compromises required for success" (quoted in "Merlin, we beg thee, thy magic, we need some here at the office" by Jacqueline Fitzgerald in the Chicago Tribune, Aug. 28, 1995, section 4, p. 3). Note the mention of "ethical compromises."

We know all about how power corrupts. We also know how money can translate into power and influence, and thus can also be a corrupting factor. And you're undoubtedly familiar with true stories about the huge ethical compromises some wealthy people have made to achieve "success" (e.g., Wall Street embezzlers, or popular actresses who "slept around," who prostituted themselves, in order to land lucrative parts in movies and/or TV shows). Unfortunately there are a lot of wealthy people who are squeamish if not downright loathe to judge the moral lapses of others because of the ethical compromises they themselves had to make. And we shouldn't be surprised to find morally challenged, wealthy, power-hungry people hugely involved in both major political parties. Those two parties are where the real power lies.

So the Tea Party revolution, which has tossed out many Democrats and even some namby-pamby "Republicans" in favor of more conservative politicians, sorely needs to continue to clean house. Our political system definitely needs much purging. The credibility of the sitting Congress, and of politicians in general, is very low. That is as it should be, given current realities. So Tea Partiers, keep a stiff upper lip and keep on keepin' on! A lot of money is going to be spent trying to discredit you, and trying to divide and conquer you. But what you are doing needs to be done, despite the propaganda of certain "Republicans" and "conservatives."