Democrats don’t care about women or gays or blacks or Muslims or…

I figured this out a few years ago: Democrats do not care about women or gays or blacks or Muslims or whatever other group they try to cater to. The Democratic Party is not about them at all, the party is only about Democratic/liberal ideology. How do I know this? Because Democrats don’t listen to women or gays or blacks or Muslims who don’t agree with them. Those people are not welcome in the Democratic party. It is really that simple. It’s a strategy called “identity politics.” They label people according to certain characteristics, then say that they care about that group of people. But it is verifiably false.

Even though it probably first happened with women or blacks, I first noticed it with gays. There ARE conservative gays, and gays who are against gay marriage. But do they get a hearing within the Democratic party? Nope. Why? Because it’s not about gays, it’s only about the Democratic/liberal ideology. As long as women or gays or blacks or Muslims are talking the liberal talking points, they’re golden. If not, they’re anathema.

Democratic talk about inclusiveness is a smokescreen to cover the promotion of their ideology. Here are a few examples of people who are not welcome in the Democratic party:

Here is a study from 2014 showing that…

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to dump a friend over politics

But don’t take my word for it–make your own observations and let me know what you find.

Advertisements

Did Bill Whittle predict President Trump back in 2012?

After the 2012 election when Romney lost, Bill Whittle had a speech that was making the rounds on places like Facebook. It is really good and I watched it several times back then. It brought me a lot of comfort after that painful loss.

He made a prediction that stuck with me and I want to share it with you to get your thoughts. He predicted that the next president would be a Republican from the pop culture. I made a mental note of that prediction, since the way he framed it made a lot of sense.

I think Trump fulfills the prediction. He’s never held public office, he had a TV show, and was a household name because of his business career, not because of any political activism.

The speech is only 15 minutes long so check it out. I think you’ll like it.

How abortion and no-fault divorce are similar

One strategic mistake my side of the debate has made is to ignore the divorce issue. The top leadership on my side almost totally ignores it, and I find this not only discouraging, but logically problematic. They just leap over it as if it wasn’t there. I mentioned this before when I wrote about the conservative preference for the children of gays.

Let me distill it as well as I can. Here is how the two issues are related:

Abortion is like no-fault divorce in that the State annuls people’s familial obligations to others who are legally innocent. In both processes, the State has failed to provide any legal means to defend against the process. The process happens at the behest of one party (Party A: petitioner in a no-fault divorce action; woman seeking an abortion) who claims that the process is needed to secure their “liberty” from the other party (Party B: respondent in a no-fault divorce action; unborn child). Party B has no legal means or protection to stop the process. The State sides with Party A 100% of the time, to either actively enforce the action (divorce) or let it happen (abortion).

This is one reason why I say that the leadership on my side of the debate is not logically consistent. We can’t expect to succeed if we ignore the more entrenched foe.

See also:

How the State frees us

As a conservative and former libertarian, I can understand why people don’t see how the state frees us. It does, but it also depends on how you define certain other ideas such as freedom, justice, and oppression. Let me start by using an example with which we can all agree.

Let’s say a person enters your home with the intent to kill you. You manage to hide in a closet somewhere. You call 911, the police arrive, and capture the person. He goes to jail, is convicted, and spends a long time in prison.

The state has freed you, right? How did that work? One of the obligations of the state is to protect the innocent and to render justice. But the potential murderer almost certainly thinks that the state has acted in an oppressive manner to convict him of a crime and throw him into prison.

So it is a matter of perspective. It is a matter of deciding where your ethics originate.

Now, let’s take that concept and apply it in another area: marriage, family, and religion. Marxists, communists, and feminists have argued for decades (if not longer) that these institutions are oppressive and unjust. They’ve made excellent headway using the legal system to suppress those institutions thereby reducing those “injustices.” Even a lot of conservatives and many libertarians are on board with these changes. However, we have seen a corresponding rise in the power of the state. How do we explain this? The state doesn’t give freedom, does it? Well, as we saw with the example above, it sort of does in the sense that it is supposed to render justice. So by suppressing all of the pre-existing social institutions, a lot of people believe that the state is rendering justice and freeing the oppressed. By suppressing those institutions, the state liberates the individual from his familial and religious obligations. It is a very seductive idea, with superficial appeal. I went along with it myself for quite a while.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the problem is that the state’s power has gone up rather than down. It is the opposite of what we anticipated when we got on board with “sexual liberation,” which is just another way of saying that the state should free us from familial and religious obligations. The dilemma for conservatives and libertarians who believe in “sexual liberation” is this: those social institutions were founded on the concept of rights coming from “nature and nature’s God.” Those rights have their own obligations, and those institutions served as a buffer between us and the state. But many among us are are endorsing the state suppressing them in order to free us from those obligations. This leaves nothing except the individual and the state, and our rights from “nature and nature’s God” go into the trash can, along with those responsibilities.

That’s how the state frees us.

=================================================

Other posts in this series:

What will conservatives be able to conserve if HRC wins?

#NeverTrumpers are in a panic over Trump’s highly inappropriate remarks that he made 11 years ago. Some who previously supported him are backing away from him.
I don’t understand what these conservatives think they will be conserving if HRC wins. Can someone enlighten me? I can’t accept criticism of Trump from social liberals like Jonah Goldberg. Anybody who supports the redefinition of marriage has zero moral ground to criticize Trump’s sexual statements. Regardless of Goldberg’s views on abortion, the redefinition of marriage entrenches abortion and fractured families. Somehow this fact escaped him, which indicates a lack of careful thought on his part. This is not acceptable given his position and education. I wouldn’t try to talk him out of being personally prolife, but he is not qualified to speak on behalf of the prolife cause. This is because he has not understood how sexual “liberation” connects abortion and same-sex marriage (and a lot of other social issues). 
 
Maybe there’s somebody else who can convince me that there is an excellent chance HRC won’t do irreparable damage to conservatism. She’s going to install justices at the federal level that will govern policy for at least 30 years. We’re all too old to be much impacted by that (probably), but I have children and a grandchild (and more grandchildren coming, someday, God willing) and they are all going to be greatly impacted by it.
 
I didn’t ask for Trump, I didn’t want Trump, I didn’t vote for Trump. But he’s not HRC. Unlike HRC, there is no guarantee that he will entrench every single social policy we hate, plus enact more. In fact, he appears to be moving in a direction we can support. What gives? Dear God, 4-8 more years of Dem control of the executive branch? #NeverTrump people are OK with that? I’d rather tarnish my reputation among liberals and some conservatives by voting for Trump than look at my grand daughter and **know** I contributed to liberal social policies and immigration issues being entrenched by not voting for him.
 
#NeverTrumpers: the policies I care about stand a better chance under Trump than under HRC, don’t they? What is it you are hoping to conserve under an HRC administration? 

Why abortion and capital punishment are not equal

A friend on Facebook posted a link to this homily that was given by a priest in the Diocese of Phoenix, at the Saints Simon and Jude Cathedral last Sunday. It is so good. I’ve talked before about the importance of making proper distinctions. That’s what he does.

If you haven’t already, you will come across liberal Catholics who maintain that abortion isn’t any more important than other “life” issues such as capital punishment, helping the poor, education, etc. This priest demolishes that notion with an interesting and revealing thought experiment. He makes it very clear which political party we need to support in November without mentioning any names. Well worth the 20 minutes.

Evaluating the State as a vehicle for poverty alleviation

Please read my post from yesterday if you haven’t yet. It will help you understand the argument I make today.

Here is a diagram I made based on the essay I linked yesterday. Notice how far removed the recipients are from the donors (taxpayers). Also notice the accountability loop:

modern-state-as-an-occasion-of-sin-diagram
Did Jesus intend for donors (taxpayers) and recipients to be so far removed from each other?

Is Jesus happy with this system? I don’t know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. The verses in the New Testament indicate that we are to give to the poor directly–that is the plain reading of the texts. Why did he phrase it like that? Was it so that we would be close to the poor, to look at them, to touch them, breathe the same air they breath, see how they live? I think so. In the state-sponsored system, we see how far removed donors and recipients are from each other.

Somebody might counter that this is OK because it is an agency relationship. If so, I disagree. This isn’t a true agency relationship, since it is based on fear/coerced “giving” and the principal (taxpayer) does not have direct control over the agent (the state). For example, try not paying the portion of your taxes that would otherwise go to the poor. Tell the IRS that you will donate that money to a worthy charity instead. See how much control you have (as the principal) over the agent (the IRS). It is actually the other way around. The agent controls the relationship. That is fine as far as it goes (Romans 13:1-7), but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this is a true agency. It isn’t.

philemon-1-14So our state-sponsored poverty alleviation system is not an agency, it is based on fear or coercion, it lacks accountability to the donor (taxpayer), it separates donors from recipients, it fosters moral hazard/rent-seeking behaviors, it thwarts intact family formation, and creates occasions for temptations to various kinds of sin (for the donors/taxpayers, the administrators, and the transfer recipients). A lot of people like this system, even those who are not transfer recipients. I wonder how they get around all of the problems I mentioned. Do the the ends justify the means in this case?

The Modern State as an Occasion of Sin

You may have seen Facebook meme’s like these:

libertarian-jesus-2

libertarian-jesus

socialist-jesus

These are not arguments, only conclusions. I think it is important to understand the underlying argument being made with those kinds of memes. This is the best treatment I’ve seen, especially since it is thoroughly Catholic:

The Modern State as an Occasion of Sin: a Public Choice Analysis of the Welfare State

My thoughts/summary:

By endorsing the state-sponsored method of poverty alleviation, we are creating two types of temptations discussed in the essay (the welfare administrator’s temptation to make capricious decisions in the allocation of tax dollars, and the payment-receiver’s temptation to use deception and/or opportunistic behavior to participate in the program). We have also created a system that is not directly accountable to the people who fund it. The state serves as a wedge between the donors (taxpayers) and the recipients, effectively keeping them apart from each other. This method of poverty alleviation lacks a direct way to be controlled by donors (taxpayers). It is not rightly viewed as an agency relationship for two reasons: 1) donors are required to fund the program. 2) Lacking competence to discover or create morality, this method creates a moral hazard (or rent-seeking) problem. Because of these issues, this method fosters resentment in the donors (taxpayers). Taxpayers are required to fund this method, but there is no corresponding requirement for recipients to be accountable to the taxpayers for how the money was spent.

Continued tomorrow.