Ahhh, progress.
___________________________
Andrea adds: “But what if he still doesn’t like me?” I’ve taken to suing gentlemen callers who don’t ask me out on a second or third date. It’s expensive, but I expect it to come to a happy, lifelong relationship soon enough.
Further to yesterday’s post (we ain’t done with that topic, just you wait). Brian Lilley surveys the state of affairs and asks whether the GOP ought to drop social conservatives to woo voters. Well.
While it’s true that change is sometimes good and that it’s always a smart idea, and not just in politics, to ponder what might have gone wrong in order to improve our lot in the future, there are certain things that ought not to be changed because they are right. Being unpopular is one thing, and if you care about being more popular, then yes, you’d probably be out there (along with David Frum) saying the GOP ought to lose its embarrassing so-cons and move bravely forward to where all the cool kids hang out.
But the larger question is twofold: 1) is it right? and 2) will it work? And my answer is no and no. If you believe, say, that abortion is wrong and you care about it enough to get involved in public affairs, then the idea that you should shut up about it in order to win power so that you can get into a position of power where you’ll be able to do precisely nothing about the issue because you ran away from it during the campaign is horrifying. And for a good reason. Plus it’s unlikely to work anyway; look at Stephen Harper. Ya think supporting him because he’s marginally less pro-abortion (we hope) than the other guys does anything?
So. The answer to Brian’s question is: It depends. If your main concern is to be more popular and win power, then maybe you ought to move away from the uncool kids with their sexual hangups (ugh, people who think having kids is neat – how perverse is that?). But if you care more about the issue than about how personally awesome you are deemed to be, don’t listen to those who are trying to convince you that you should do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. If that means yet another split on the right, so be it.
Like they say, change is sometimes necessary.
Oh boy, the fun we’ll have in the next couple of years trying to figure out whither conservatism. I continue to maintain that so-called conservative parties ought to be – at least somewhat – conservative. The same way NDPers ought to be, well, NDPesque (Liberals can continue to be for themselves; they’re the only ones who really care). As this little gem of reasonable argumentation explains, “It’s obvious that, whatever face Harper presents to Canadians, his dark grass roots will always be showing.”
Though to be fair, Ms. Zerbisias has a point. (Really. I looked.)
Conservatives, social or otherwise, will continue to press for their agenda, the same way public-sector unions or artists or auto workers or nurses push for theirs. That’s just life, no matter how some columnists dislike it (and no matter how much I dislike public-sector unions). And yes, conservatives, especially the social kind, and putting pressure on the leadership of the so-called “Conservative” party to move in their preferred direction. What else they gonna do? Push in the opposite direction? Suddenly turn around and say, you know, we’ve always been completely wrong, let’s advocate for even more abortions?
The more Stephen Harper tries to distance himself from what the grassroots of his party really want, the more dishonest he looks. And the more annoyed grassroots conservatives get. That is what people used to describe as a “lose-lose” situation. If you’re going to be accused of having a hidden agenda no matter what, why not pay some attention to what the folks in your own party are saying? Engage them, argue with them, fine. But at least do it out in the open instead of trying to pretend there ain’t no grassroots.
So says Karl Rove. Faint praise, methinks (who really likes the good Senator, I wonder?), but still.
9. Culture matters. Suggestions that we abandon social conservatism, including our pro-life agenda, should be ignored. These values are often more popular than the GOP itself. The age of sonograms has made younger voters a more pro-life generation. And California and Florida approved marriage amendments while McCain lost both states. Republicans, in championing our values agenda, need to come across as morally serious rather than as judgmental. More than 4 million Americans who go to church more than once a week and voted in 2004 stayed home in 2008. They represented half the margin between Obama and McCain. [emphasis mine]
Mmm. Serious not judgemental. I’ll make sure to keep that in mind.
If you are visiting this site, you may have noticed our tagline, “Canada without abortion. By choice.”
Now that the U.S. has a pro-abortion President, I’m glad to see pro-lifers trying to think of other ways to outlaw abortion. Read about that, front page of the Washington Post, here. It’s wise to acknowledge Obama is pro-abortion and move on. (Whether or not a pro-lifer can or should have voted for him is a question we’ve already addressed and that debate is over now.)
Lots of interesting points in this article, including this one:
“You don’t work to limit the murder of innocent victims,” said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League. “You work to stop it.”
Yes, you work to stop it, but the question is how. I don’t think that civilized, compassionate societies should offer, pay for, sanction or condone abortion in any form. In that sense, some day we’ll come to the point where we outlaw it, as William Wilberforce worked to outlaw slavery. We’re not there, not even close. Now Wilberforce outlawed slavery on some sort of technicality–he was very clever about it–the mores of his culture had not yet changed.
We (pro-lifers) need to get creative. We need to look for new and different ways to stop abortion, especially considering Obama’s record on the topic. I hope he’s not as extreme as he appears, but all I have to go on is his solidly pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood Approved (gold star!) record. So better look elsewhere, is what I say, and incidentally, what I did, too in launching this web site and group. (Because in Canada, multi-cultural land of diversity that we are, every leader is pro-choice right now, and, I believe over the course of my lifetime this has always been the case.)
____________________________
Interesting commentary from the author of The Party of Death, here. He ends by saying this:
Still, we learn something from Salmon: It is indeed possible for pro-lifers to get friendly treatment from the Washington Post, at least as long as they are supporting pro-choice politicians.
Aid to Women is having an info session this Saturday. If you live in or near Toronto, it promises to be a good event.
Date: November 22, 2008 (Saturday)
Location: 300 Gerrard Street East, Toronto, ON
Email: [email protected]
Time: Noon to 3.30pm
Certainly this is what we are about–coping with crisis, over the long term instead of “offering” the “compassion” of abortion.
I always find Kay Hymowitz interesting, even as I say yikes–the dating scene is not that bad.
Here’s the thing: I think you end up embittered and creating web sites called “relationshit.com” when you only ever viewed the opposite sex as a vehicle from whom you can get something, be it sex, marriage, money or status. Seems to me at some point that is going to break down. Seems to me it will break down particularly poorly for one or the other when you start a relationship with sex. But hey–they call me “old-fashioned” while muttering about stealing women’s rights…and baking cookies….while barefoot and pregnant….
Anyhoodle, this quote from the article:
As the disenchanted SYM sees it, then, resistance to settling down is a rational response to a dating environment designed and ruled by women with only their own interests in mind. “Men see all of this, and wonder if it’s really worth risking all in the name of ‘romance’ and ‘growing up,’ ” a correspondent who calls himself Wytchfinde explains. “After all, if women can be hedonistic and change the rules in midstream when it suits them, why shouldn’t men? Why should men be responsible when women refuse to look into the mirror at their own lack of accountability?”
reminded me of a personal exchange I had with a guy I worked with once. He made it clear if I ever repeated this, he’d deny it. He said something like this: “If marriage means being constrained in manners x, y and z and you still have to eat Mister Noodles every night, then what’s the point?” And I see his point.
But then is his deal that his significant other ought to care for him through good cooking? Who doesn’t like good cooking, I ask you? Mmm, mm. Back to my point. Which is that people do not equal a vehicle to fulfill yourself.
People=relationships=hard and messy, sometimes AND good times other times. It’s either/or almost all the time.
(I’d like to dedicate this stream of consciousness to Véronique.)
________________________
Brigitte can out-old-fashion Andrea: It’s the old ‘why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free’ thing. Except nowadays guys don’t even have to live with girls – heck, they don’t even need to be ‘in a relationship’ – isn’t that what they call friends with benefits? Free milk on demand?. And the girls are drilled to believe giving it all away in exchange for nothing is ‘liberating’. Pfshaw. I wouldn’t say we’re lacking societal norms. I’d say we got societal norms that stink. Both for men and women. I’m told boys are enjoying themselves. But men are about as disappointed with these newish norms as women are.
But in a church, it’s called a marketing ploy. Figures.
Ed Young wants married couples to have sex all week long. Once a day. Beginning this Sunday. The call to action will headline Mr. Young’s Sunday sermon at Grapevine-based Fellowship Church…
Jim Dale of Coppell said he figures the pastor is trying to create more buzz for his five-church mega-ministry. “Draw ’em in, no matter what or how,” wrote the Coppell resident in a posting on dallasnews.com. “Sex? You betcha. That’ll pack the pews (or theater seats).”
Alas, church is supposed to be boring and stale. One is only supposed to hear drawn out liturgy about who begat whom. And, for Pete’s sake, if the subject of sex is to come up, it should only be to tell people to repent from having it.
If — aside from what I instill in her — my kid learns about sex from school, television, the internet, highway billboards, fashion magazines, music videos, movies, and that extreme PDA couple on the bus every afternoon, I sure hope the church won’t be silent on the topic.
What with the Olympics and all, it it always a good time to remember the brutality of Chinese Communism:
Arzigul Tursun, six months pregnant with her third child, is under guard in a hospital in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region, scheduled to undergo an abortion against her will because authorities say she is entitled to only two children, according to the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
____________________________
Rebecca asks: Why is this woman not eligible for refugee status somewhere in the civilized world?
____________________________
HAPPY UPDATE: It appears she has been released – without having to undergo the abortion – because of international pressure.
Read about Stojan Adasevic, here.