John Hawkins is a little fed up (as am I) of all this “truce” talk on social issues. I guess we’re expected to let our Republican leaders deal with really important things like the economy and jobs. Hooey, says I.
John Hawkins says it a lot better though:
First it was Mitch Daniels who was out in public saying we need a “truce” on moral issues. This was an extraordinarily dumb thing for a man who wants to be President to say because many people, myself included, stuck him in the “I don’t know whom I’m supporting in 2012, but it won’t be him” pile the moment he said it.
Well, now Paul Ryan, whom I have great admiration for, is out there saying the same thing,
Check out the rest of Hawkins’ piece here. I think it’s pretty important reading because I get the feeling that social conservatives are about to be kicked to the curb.
September 21, 2010 at 11:10 pm
It's Paul Ryan.
Great guy, as educated in economics as possible (to the point of being too educated), but not exactly a guy well trained in looking up from his papers and ideas.
September 21, 2010 at 11:39 pm
You know, all of this brings me back to the gospel reading from the weekend. I'm reminded about how the children of this world are "wiser" in their generation than the children of light. From a pragmatic sense, yes, it makes sense to call truce on the social issues to focus on the economy. In a time of economic downturn, a lot of people suddenly stop caring about fighting the good fight and instead just hope to fight for their lives.
The problem is, the "good fight" is the one which really matters more. Destroy the foundations of civilization (as in the homosexualist push to redefine marriage) and it really isn't going to matter who had and who didn't have a job. Destroy the foundation of our civilization's future–by killing off our next generation–and suddenly whether we have a bull market or a bear market seems trivial. "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?"
The position of those in office (or hoping to get in) is increasingly that they will profit themselves by cheating someone else. That someone else is you and me–the voters, the citizens–and it is the unborn who are slaughtered in the womb. It is also our children and grandchildren, who will face a society which surrendered in the culture war and which sends them merrily on their way down and down, with little more than a fat paycheck thinned by the rising costs of social security and the likes which they will be burdened with in an era where there are scarcely 2 people working for every person retired.
September 22, 2010 at 2:05 am
Modern liberalism is all about privatizing behavior and socializing risk. That means one can only be fiscally conservative if one is socially conservative. Otherwise government expands in the effort to cope with the costs of self-indulgence at the expense of the virtuous.
September 22, 2010 at 2:16 am
Kinda contradicts what he said back in July:
Asked what he thinks about Mitch Daniels' proposed "truce" on social issues, Ryan said, "I don’t see it quite the same way." Ryan thinks it's important to build a broad coalition to fight "social welfare statism," but "we don’t need to ask anybody to unilaterally disarm."
"I’m as pro-life as a person gets," Ryan continued. "You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life."
(source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-rules-out-2012-presidential-run-talks-mitch-daniels)
I've seen enough positive from Paul Ryan that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm (personally) willing to chalk it up to playing percentages and working to keep the emphasis on the economy for the sake of winning elections.
September 22, 2010 at 2:32 am
OK – rereading the Lifesite article made me even more skeptical about the "truce" comment. They didn't give a date, they didn't say what show, they only provided one quote by Ryan and filled the rest of the column with Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence quotes.
Well, I found the clip. And I believe he's been unfairly criticized. He gives a quick response to a last-second question as the show is wrapping up.
"What about the social baggage – that some people that would like to be fiscally conservative… they don’t agree with that?"
Ryan's response was what he would say to a social liberal/fiscal conservative. He didn't backtrack on social issues at all. He was expressing what his platform has to offer to those who disagree on social issues.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1590386756&play=1
September 22, 2010 at 2:37 am
One last note – Ryan never used the word "truce" in that CNBC interview despite the headline and the quotation marks used in the first sentence of the Lifenews article.
September 22, 2010 at 4:30 am
Mike,
I couldn't believe that Ryan had backed down on abortion either, thanks for clearing it up.
September 22, 2010 at 12:58 pm
What's most troubling is all of this talk of eschewing discourse and action on social issues for the sake of the "win" is preemptive & presumptive. We're basically being told, even if we win a majority in the House, and better, a majority in the Senate too, don't expect much on social issues; we won't stand up and make a real fight on the issues important to traditional conservatives, i.e., those who are both fiscally and socially conservative. They're raising the white flag on half of the conservative agenda even before they've won instead of exhibiting true leadership by highlighting the low hanging fruit on that social agenda that enjoys broad national support, and laying the groundwork to make the necessary moral case to the public where a conservative perspective does not enjoy broad support… yet.
It's very disappointing to find it seems some influential conservative strategists and tacticians lack the courage and perhaps the ability or desire to honestly and effectively advance a thoroughly conservative vision to America.
Pax et bonum
September 22, 2010 at 7:05 pm
The first thing is to look at history, which is to say that Ryan's pattern of practice is to be pro-life, period. I'm told that Daniels has a similar track record.
So Ryan's remark seems to be tactical, rather than strategic. That is, in THIS election cycle, with THESE conditions, the economic and size-of-Gummint arguments are the strongest.
And they are.
Notable is the fact that most "Tea Party" victors ARE pro-lifers, too. And NRA-approved, as well.
September 22, 2010 at 8:20 pm
About to be? For the last year the Libertarians {not to be confused with small-l} have been talking about how those horrible, horrible SoCons have been "dragging" the Repubs to the "far right;" gets even funnier when the pro-life Dems that vote Republican say similar things about the Libertarians, but on social spending.
I clarify as small-L on the Libertarians because the capitalized ones seem to always be pro-abort, while the small-L ones philosophize that all humans have a right to life, even if they're currently inside of someone else, and "keep people from directly killing each other" is a valid function of gov't.
September 22, 2010 at 9:11 pm
It is good that we identify the Republicans who call for this action because, we know who among our party are with distorted morals and disordered values. These people need to be kicked out of the party because they will usher confusion and institutionalize evil and wrong doing within the platform. Pretty soon, people won't have a leg to stand on as they fall for every new compromise to the most horrible crime in our times. Shame on those who call for a truce on abortion.
To have a truce with abortion supporters is like having a truce with the Nazis. They round up the Jewish people, detain them then put them into hard labor. When they're too weak or sick to work, they gas them and burn their remains. But with a truce, one stands idly by saying, "Sorry, but we need to get our finances in order first."
What a putz and a schmuck.
September 23, 2010 at 4:13 am
Here's Ryan's statement on the matter from this week.
http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=207539
September 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I agree with Dad29 – it's a tactical move. The same way in which Chris Christie had to be careful in NJ. At the risk of alienating pro-lifers he could not run on a pro-life ticket. However, Christie's done more in 9 months for Life in NJ than pro-lifer's ever could have imagined. He shut done Planned Parenthood in Cherry Hill and there are more PP's to shut down this year!!!
"CHERRY HILL— Cuts in state funding have led Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey to close a family planning clinic in Cherry Hill.
The decision came a day after Democrats in the New Jersey Senate on Monday failed to override Gov. Chris Christie's veto of a bill that would have provided $7.5 million for 58 clinics around the state.
Christie said the state didn't have the money.
Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey CEO Lynn Brown told The Courier-Post of Cherry Hill that meant a loss of about $160,000 to the organization."
As Reported in http://www.northjersey.com Sept. 22, 2010
Fiscal conservatism works, the whining about purity of motives always gives the win to the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. But then again, that might be the real motive behind the "whining."
September 23, 2010 at 2:47 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Continued… having a truce on abortion is like saying to the child who is about to be torn from limb to limb, "Sorry kid but we have to address the economy first, you just have to wait. I mean you just have to DIE!." Have these mo foe a$$ wholeS lost their freaking minds? What is the tactical merit about letting the babies get vacuumed to death?
September 23, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Also, I don't buy that keep it legal and just work to help women not have to procure them crap. These folks are not sounding any better than Obama. DISGUSTING!
Does anyone else not see why that approach is a sophism to legitimize a gross immorality?