Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: The Truth Doesn’t Make A Noise

August 24, 2012

One of the hallmarks of Leftist ideology is the flexibility of the definition of truth. While conservatives largely believe that truth is objective, that Nature and Natural Law proscribe some verities that are eternal and unchanging, Progressives believe in the subjectivity of truth. For them, truth is your truth. What you believe, that is what is true to you.

When truth is subjective, it becomes malleable. You can stretch it like Silly Putty and imprint anything you want over it. By defining truth as subjective, you make it irrelevant. The notion of a subjective truth, that truth is what you want it to be, is really no different from the belief that truth does not exist. If it can be anything then it is, in fact, nothing.

For instance, this has been popping up on my Facebook page from so many self-satisfied Progressives:

Ryan and Akin

Objectively, there is nothing true in this photograph. There has never been a bill before Congress whose purpose was “to redefine rape.” The bill (about federal funding for abortion) they are hyperventilating over was supported by Paul Ryan, but not co-sponsored by him. The wording in the bill made reference to “forcible rape”, and was designed to distinguish it from statutory rape (which is often consensual). The wording was changed before the bill was passed. With bipartisan support. I’m even willing to bet the paper the photo identifies with an arrow as the bill is not, in fact, the bill at all. When was the last time you saw a bill from Congress that could be held with a couple of fingers?

It would be one thing if this was some guy in his basement armed with a chip on his shoulder and Photoshop. But this photograph is brought to you by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and promoted on their Facebook page. This is an official lie. The question then becomes: Do the Democrats believe this stuff? Or is this merely their “truth.”

The picture, commented on by nearly 2000 people with furrowed brows and a palpable sense of moral outrage, promotes several lies to get a reaction. The truth? It doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is achieving the end result. Let the truth be damned. Or as Georg Wilhelm Hegel, the spirit guide for Marx and Engels, wrote: “If the facts do not agree with the theory, so much the worse for the facts.”

Don’t believe me that Progressives view the truth as irrelevant? Consider this exchange between CNN’s Anderson Cooper (no Tea Partier) and the odious Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congresswoman and chair of the Democratic National Committee. She is the public face of the DNC, handpicked for the role by Barack Obama, the one who appears on every talk show to espouse the Democrat view in an official capacity.

Many of the things she says in this interview are also factually not true and Cooper, to his credit, holds her feet to the fire. Finally, when Cooper has backed her into a corner over her lies she unleashes the truth about the truth: “It doesn’t matter,” she says around the 2:50 mark when confronted with the fact that she purposefully misquoted a Los Angeles Times article in a fundraising email to make a case that is untrue. When pressed with the question “Do you acknowledge that what you quoted…was incorrect?” Wasserman Schultz replies “No” even though it is empirically, factually incorrect. When pressed further, with the full quote read to her she replies again, with no small degree of exasperation in her voice: “It doesn’t matter.”

Again, this is not the usual exaggerations and distortions that are the stock and trade of politicians of all stripes. The DCCC and Wasserman Schultz are acting as what philosopher Eric Voeglin referred to as “intellectual swindlers.” They know what they are saying is untrue, yet persist in saying it to achieve their goals.

Another example of how this works is also going viral in Progressive circles. Again, it’s popping up regularly on my Facebook page:

The comments on Facebook are all solidly in the “Wow! This guy is really sticking it to the Tea Party!” category. What none of the posters have commented on is the fact that radio host Michael Graham’s side of the argument has been completely edited out. What was, in reality, a dialogue that clearly shows Michael Higgins’s contempt for Israel via a ranting, scattered polemic, has been turned into a monologue where Higgins takes on the Tea Party. The self-congratulation of the Progressives over this is astounding. It is simply assumed that Higgins, the very far Left, virulently anti-Israel president of Ireland has destroyed Graham’s argument. This is clearly not true if you listen to the entire debate. It’s 20 minutes long, but worth hearing if the short version makes your blood boil. In context, Higgins evades questions and substitutes invective and name-calling for answers to Graham’s reasonable, though sometimes equally heated, questions. The truth here has simply been silenced, the detritus rearranged and the context warped. This was done for no reason at all, except to create a new truth.

It’s often been said that, for the Progressives, politics is war. It’s a favorite cliché of the Left to declare that various problems facing America should be looked at as “the moral equivalent of war.” They speak in militaristic terms: War on Poverty, War on Crime, War on Drugs. They talk of Republicans as waging a “War on women.” Well as Samuel Johnson wrote, “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”

Truth, for the Left, is not what is. It is what you say.

Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: Touré Outre

August 17, 2012

Fresh from the cesspools at MSNBC, the political commentator/author/critic Touré emerges with one of his trademark race-baiting comments. Touré, who only goes by his first name à la Cher, Madonna, and Hillary!, has long been notorious in political geek circles as an advocate for the hard Left and a champion at taking the most innocuous comments and feeding them into the race mill.

On The Cycle, the MSNBC show that in no way whatsoever is based on Fox News’s extremely successful show The Five, Touré made the following comment about Mitt Romney’s campaign against Barack Obama:

I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization’. You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.

The first thing one notices is that Touré does say this lightly. He’s clearly been planning on dropping this bomb for awhile. But that’s beside the point.

The point is that this is very typical of the Left. Barack Obama is a black man, so any criticism of him is rooted in his skin color. It couldn’t possibly be the policies that the man espouses, and the programs he has put into law. It couldn’t be based on mounting debt, high unemployment, decreasing household income. No, for the Left, it’s always about identity politics. Because it’s Barack Obama, it’s racism. If the President was Hillary! it would be sexism. The Left does not see people as individuals, it sees groups of voting blocs. The black vote, the female vote, the gay vote.

The tendency of the Left to see people as groups and not individuals stems from a world view where everything is centralized, starting with the government. The Left wing conception of government is as a group of enlightened people who tell the other groups what to do and how to act. The people, for them, are just smaller, but equally centralized groups. It is a hive mind in action and it sees only other hives. It is the way shepherds view their sheep. At it’s heart, it is anti-human.

Any response I could come up with to Touré’s insipid and revolting comment would pale in comparison to this beautiful, powerful, and poignant response from Kira Davis.

Crazy Uncle Joe

August 15, 2012

Ha! That lovable rogue Joe Biden has done it again! You never know what’s going to come out of his mouth. This week, on Oh, That Biden!, he slipped into that down home, faux-black accent that Democratic politicians love to use when they’re speaking to black audiences. It’s a way of saying that they’re down with the Negro dialect, that some of their best friends might be black, or at least have black household help. And what did Biden say while he was patronizing those people by talking like a guest star in a Tyler Perry movie? Why, he implied that Mitt Romney wanted to bring back slavery! Oh, that Biden!

Speaking to a largely, though not entirely, black audience, Biden said that Mitt Romney wants “to let the big banks once again write their own rules—unchain Wall Street!” Then, slipping into that black dialect: “They gon’ put y’all back in chains.” Das right! He went there, girlfriend! Good Lord, the condescension is so thick you could walk on it.

Now the fact is that some of Biden’s gaffes are nothing more than the harmless side effect of having too much speaking time and too little brainpower. Lines like “The President has a big stick” when discussing foreign policy, or telling the nation that President Roosevelt went on TV to address the nation four years before he became President…well, it’s kind of like watching Homer Simpson in the real world.

This should make anyone, regardless of party affiliation, nervous. Homer Simpson is one of the funniest characters in TV history, but he’s a cartoon. On TV. I.e., he doesn’t exist. Joe Biden is one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world.

He does exist. He’s not a cartoon. And he is a blithering idiot.

Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle were persecuted by the media for far more innocuous statements. Dan Quayle was forever branded as a moron because he misspelled “potato.” It’s 20 years later and the only thing people remember about Dan Quayle is that he can’t spell “potato” and he was involved in an imbroglio over some liberal wet dream television show that nobody can remember.

Joe Biden? The Human Gaffe Machine is considered a statesman and foreign policy expert by the same media. A little eccentric, maybe, but that’s just Joe being Joe. In fact, Barack Obama selected Biden as his running mate because of Biden’s foreign policy acumen, despite the fact that Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy issue for the past 30 years.

Personally, I don’t care about Biden’s legitimate slips of the tongue. He gives a lot of speeches, and everybody flubs their lines on occasion. For example, in the same speech where he implied that Romney is a preppy version of Simon Legree, he proudly proclaimed “We can win North Carolina!” Unfortunately, he was speaking in Virginia. Anyone could make that mistake.

But Biden’s lengthy string of idiotic statements are more than just the drunken ramblings of Uncle Nutty at the family reunion. What Biden said about Romney was more than just a gaffe. From the faux-black accent to the nature of the aside, it is clear to me that this was not a gaffe at all. It was a dog whistle, meant to be heard only by a select few. Biden’s eternal idiocy gives him cover to speak in code to the base. If caught, it’s only “Crazy Uncle Joe meant to say something different and it came out wrong.” If not caught, so much the better.

Not every gaffe is a slip of the tongue. Some of them are messages. What Biden said in Virginia was one of the latter.


August 13, 2012

One of the (many) knocks that Mitt Romney has had to endure is that he is unfailingly dull and cautious. Most of the talking heads on the news programs were convinced that Romney was going to pick either Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman as his running mate. The conservative base, meanwhile, was crying out for Marco Rubio and, to a lesser extent, Paul Ryan.

From the beginning, it was clear to me that Romney was going to have to choose a running mate who would meet with the approval of the Tea Party. A dull, safe choice like Pawlenty or Portman was going to neither inspire nor invigorate the conservative base of the GOP. It’s exactly why I feared those two choices. Portman is reliably conservative, and Pawlenty was a successful conservative governor but let’s face it: they’re as dull as dishwater.

To me, Rubio seemed the smartest choice. Young, handsome, Hispanic, from Florida, and completely Tea Party-approved. Rubio may still be where the future of the Republican Party lay. Right now I’m picturing him as the second half of the 2020 Ryan/Rubio ticket.

But Romney chose Paul Ryan, a lightning rod for the Democrats, a man who was accused of trying to destroy the social safety net, who has gone on record in great detail about cuts he wants to make to government, a man who has been visually represented in an advertisement literally throwing an elderly, wheelchair-bound woman off a cliff.

Bravo, Mr. Romney. Bravo.

Say what you will about Romney, the choice of Paul Ryan was the politically riskiest pick he could have made short of hauling Sarah Palin away from Sean Hannity for another attempt. Was it a smart choice? Time will tell. The Democrats are already blasting the choice, trying to paint Paul Ryan as an extremist right-wing nut. The hatchet job they are trying to pull off will make the character assassination of Sarah Palin look tame. I fully expect the lunatic Andrew Sullivan to write blog posts claiming that Ryan’s children are Midwich Cuckoos.

But Ryan’s place on the ticket proves one thing: Mitt Romney understands the stakes of this election. For a long time, I was unsure whether he fully appreciated the gravity in the black hole of debt with which Obama and George W. Bush have saddled us. Romney in the primaries talked a good game, but it seemed that he considered our rising debt and deficit as just another problem that needed solving, not an impending crisis of nation-shattering proportions.

Paul Ryan is the serious face here. There is nobody in Congress who understands the budget, the deficit, and the debt more than he does. And he has gone on record with his solution. What Paul Ryan does as Romney’s running mate is force this election to be about genuinely big issues. This is a debate the Left claims they want, but in fact they are terrified of this. Ryan has a plan. It is not a perfect plan, but it is an excellent starting point. Ryan is not a perfect conservative, either, having voted in favor of some of the debt he now is trying to curb. But that is in the past and Ryan has seemingly seen the error of his ways and emerged as a budget hawk without sliding into the fantasy fringe of Ron Paul. The Democrats will scream and point fingers, accusing Ryan of everything from trying to destroy Medicare to forcing old people to eat cat food. Ryan will counter as he always has: eloquently, with facts and figures, charts and graphs, and a smile. I’ve watched Ryan on news shows for years now and he has never come across as someone who is less than completely reasonable and rational. The liberal opposition, meanwhile, has no facts, no charts, no graphs, and only vituperation. Most telling, they have no opposing plan of their own. As Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Paul Ryan when asked about the debt: “We don’t have a definitive solution. We just don’t like yours.”

In their zeal to attack Ryan, the Democrats have moved away from their campaign strategy to keep this election about anything except economics. The Democrats have tried to make the election about birth control, about Mitt Romney’s taxes, about whether Romney put a dog crate on his car in the early 1980s. They have been loath to discuss anything to do with the economy because it is a losing issue for them.

By picking the poster child for entitlement and budget reform, Mitt Romney has shifted the focus of the election back to the issues that really matter. And while Romney is not comfortable with conservative speech, Paul Ryan makes the case for budget and entitlement reform with great eloquence.

The Democrats are falling all over themselves now in a rush to tell the world how happy they are that Romney has picked such a polarizing figure, that Romney’s choice is even worse than John McCain’s in 2008. This is a lie. The truth is they’re scared. They should be. Ryan is not some sort of monstrous ogre who wants to throw grandma into the snow. He is what the Left fears: a living, breathing rebuttal to the vapidity of their rhetoric and the absence of their ideas.

Andrew Breitbart, RIP

March 1, 2012

The conservative community woke up to a genuine shock today with the news that Andrew Breitbart had unexpectedly passed away. Aside from being one of the founders of the Huffington Post (the one who had the good sense to leave it), Breitbart was a major thorn in the side of the Left wing, and I have no doubt that the Left will not be able to conceal their giddiness at the news of his death. Breitbart would probably expect—maybe even want—his Leftist detractors to smear him and rejoice at the news. He understood that if you can judge a man by the company he keeps, you can also judge him by the enemies he makes.

Breitbart leaves behind a wife, family, and a stack of essential reading web sites: Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, Big Government, Big Peace, BreitbartTV, and Breitbart. He was a tireless advocate for liberty and conservatism who was unwilling to back down from the worst of what the Left could throw at him. While he lacked the name recognition of Sarah Palin, the bile directed at Breitbart was just as scathing. Breitbart’s response to these attacks, most notoriously on Twitter, was to thumb his nose and retweet the haters without comment…letting the world see them for what they really are. Breitbart constantly called out the Left’s most notorious attack dogs and revealed them to be nothing more than vicious, small-minded Yorkies, yapping ineffectively and pathetically against him.

I never met the man, but I would have loved to sit down and shoot the breeze with him. He was a “happy warrior” always smiling and fending off his know-nothing critics with facts, biting humor, and a smile. He knew they were absurd, and enjoyed proving it. He will be sorely missed. RIP.

To Serve Man

February 27, 2012

Shortly before he took the role that made him a star, as the towering out-of-time caveman in Eegah!, actor Richard Kiel starred in one of the most famous and well-constructed episodes of The Twilight Zone. Kiel played a gigantic alien who came to Earth, addressed the United Nations, and promised that his people would turn Earth into a paradise. They provided cures for cancer, new sources of cheap energy, and even interstellar tourist flights. They were guided by a book, written in the alien language, whose title codebreakers finally translated as To Serve Man. Of course, just as the human protagonist was about to go on the alien spacecraft for a trip to the alien home planet, his dreams of seeing the alien paradise were crushed when his assistant rushed to the gate and told him that the codebreakers had finished decoding the book: To Serve Man was a cookbook.

Cue the creepy Twilight Zone music.

As twist endings go, “To Serve Man…it’s a cookbook!” ranks right up there with “Soylent Green is made of people!” and Kevin Spacey’s disappearing limp. For me, the punchline is that title. Aliens that promise us good stuff but really want us for dinner is a time-honored trope of science fiction, most recently seen in the television series V. But it took the Twilight Zone to sum up the heart of it all in three words: to serve man.

This is the direction my mind wanders when politicians start talking about the wonderful things they are going to do for us. “Vote for me and I’ll set you free!” sang the Temptations in “Ball of Confusion.” But the contradiction is stark. A politician can not “set you free” unless he is abolishing laws. We are born free and, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, endowed by Our Creator (i.e., God) with rights. All laws put restrictions on the idea of being totally free.

Many times, these restrictions are necessary. We have laws against murder that restrict my freedom to go around killing people…and that’s a good thing. Absent law, society swings into anarchy. While the V for Vendetta crowd at Occupy Wherever may wear the anarchist A symbol and punk rockers love to promote the idea of anarchy, the reality is far different. You want to know what anarchy looks like? Go to a riot. Go live in Somalia. Anarchy is as frightening a concept as totalitarianism. In either case you are living under a jackboot of fear: fear of your neighbors in one, fear of the state in another.

The difficult part of threading the needle is knowing where to stop when creating new laws. At what point does a law become a genuine abridgement of freedom, as opposed to a societal blockade against crime and anarchy?

It’s a point we long ago passed in America. We’re not as far along as Canada, where writing a legitimate criticism of Islam can land you in front of a Human Rights Council, and we’re nowhere near the totalitarian regimes of China, North Korea, or Cuba. But make no mistake, many of the laws being passed in this country serve no purpose except to empower an already bloated governmental bureaucracy. These laws are not designed to hold off encroaching hordes of Vandals or Visigoths. No, they are to help us lead better lives.

These laws are designed to serve man.

Listen to Barack Obama, or any one of dozens of politicians from either party. They promise to make things better for us. They speak of the helpless in society and pass laws that affect everyone, helpless or not. Obamacare was originally meant to address the problem of people who did not have health insurance, but it spun into a near total takeover of everyone’s healthcare choices. In 2008 candidate Obama famously talked about his election as the moment when the oceans would begin to recede as he would enact laws that would stem the approaching tide of global warming. They promise to take care of us.

There was a moment in the 1992 Presidential Debate that Rush Limbaugh used to mercilessly mock. A man from the audience asked messers Clinton, Bush, and Perot a question:

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

This man, and I use the term loosely, would be the first one on board the spaceship, and the first to end up as alien gruel. He hammered his point home about how much of a child he really is by asking the candidates to “cross our hearts” in their promise not to talk bad about each other.

Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we’re not under oath at this point but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the U.S. to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? I repeat that. It’s a real need, I think, that we all have.

What’s telling here, though, is that none of the candidates stepped down from behind his podium, grabbed this dude by the shoulders, and yelled “You can ACT LIKE A MAN!!” like Don Corleone shaking some spine into Johnny Fontaine. Too bad, because a largely forgotten debate moment would be legendary today if one of them had done that. And that moment should not be forgotten, because it speaks to the way that too many people view government: as a provider of goods, services, safety. Government’s job, many people believe, is to care for the citizenry. This belief is a complete subversion of what the relationship between citizen and government was intended to be.

The fact of the matter is this: government does not care. It is not a human being, it is an institution created by people, empowered by people, and ultimately controlled by people. Politicians are public servants. They are not smarter than the average person, they are not more enlightened, more trustworthy, or more beneficient. Yet, they seem to believe that it is their job to make sure that no harm comes to us. We are the symbolic children of government, they believe, and they are becoming more protective parents every day. Pretty soon we’ll be living in bubbles, lest we come into contact with some airborne chemical that they believe is harmful to our growth.

You can hear it loud and clear in the debate over entitlements, when the Republicans manage to find their cojones and actually talk about this stuff. The very concept of a government-supplied “entitlement” speaks volumes. The documents that created this country, from the Articles of Confederation to the Declaration to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to the Constitution to the Bill of Rights, make clear that the only thing we Americans are entitled to is freedom. Any mention of rights in these documents is only to stress that the government can not infringe on those self-evident rights.

By referring to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as “entitlements” you are putting yourself squarely on the road to serfdom. You have established your relationship with the government as being one in which the government provides for you, and you are now the child waiting to be fed. The public servants have now become the public’s masters.

Politicians like to talk of these “entitlements” as providing a “social safety net” so that the elderly won’t have to eat cat food, and the poor will have healthcare. But what they are really doing is creating a system of government where politicians get to decide what rights we have, and how they are exercised. By being the Great Provider, government assumes total control over our lives, and the freedom that truly is our national entitlement becomes just one more item to be controlled, legislated, and regulated. Some politicians do this because they truly mean well. Some do it because they seek expanded power. The result is the same: the average American ends up living where every action and thought is regulated, and some actions and thoughts once considered perfectly acceptable, are now illegal. We are not there yet, but we are on the road, heading in that direction.

Politicians who promise to pass laws that provide for us for our own good are no different from the alien Kanamit in The Twilight Zone. Instead of “To Serve Man” they instead talk about building a safety net. But if the alien book is full of recipes, the social safety net is a spiderweb. Once we are in it, we are stuck, as a ravenous governmental Shelob descends on us. And as the web grows larger and stronger, the chance of breaking free and embracing our national birthright becomes smaller and weaker.

Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: Rick Santorum (?!)

February 17, 2012

The Republicans are really not making it easy for conservatives like me in this election year. We don’t trust Romney, we don’t like Newt, we think Paul’s nuts. But generally speaking we like Santorum. Then he goes and gets all Progressive on us.

Rick Santorum on Internet gambling:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they tend to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.

Oh, brother…

First off, Rick, the Constitution does not grant us rights. It limits the government from infringing on the rights that are our birthright, that are given to us by God.

I’ve been pretty consistent in my support for Rick Santorum during this process, going so far as to officially endorse him on my Twitter account. But my support has also always been fairly tepid. Of the four remaining candidates, I think he’s the most conservative in his core beliefs. Romney has been saying all the right things, but he gives the impression that he’s spent the last few years with a Rosetta Stone of conservative speech. Catch Romney off the cuff and he’s liable to tell you that he believes the minimum wage should go up every year indexed to inflation, a mind-bogglingly unconservative sentiment.

Still, my tepid support for Santorum is being strained to the limit with this latest dose of Progressive inanity.

The rap against Santorum from the Left is that he is a wacko Christian Papist who wants to establish a theocracy, ban birth control, and force everyone to go to Church on Sunday. It’s a bogus charge. Santorum is a Catholic and has firmly held beliefs that are rooted in his faith. But the idea that he is getting his marching orders from Rome is as offensive today as it was when John F. Kennedy was accused of the same thing. Kennedy! A man and, indeed, an entire family that wouldn’t care about Catholic doctrine if it bit them on their collective fanny. But there is still a strain of anti-Catholicism in politics and the media, and many of the charges against Santorum are the result of it.

My main concern with Santorum has always been that he is an acolyte of George W. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism.” When Bush said “When people are hurting, the government’s got to move” he stuck a dagger into the hearts of conservatives everywhere. Conservatives believe that when people are hurting the government’s got to move as far away as possible. Santorum, on the other hand, sees absolutely nothing wrong with feeding Leviathan to promote conservative philosophies. The problem with that, of course, is that the first rule of conservatism is to stop feeding Leviathan.

There are a lot of reasons to be opposed to internet gambling, but Santorum’s reasoning is no different than the reasoning of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he tries to ban trans-fats, or Michelle Obama when she wants school cafeterias to stop serving food kids actually like, or Barack Obama when he wants to the government to provide health care for everyone. In this stance, Santorum is just another Big Government Nanny State-loving Progressive. There is, in fact, more Progressivism packed into these two paragraphs than in anything Mitt Romney has said during the campaign. Social engineering from a conservative is no less odious than it is from a Leftist, even though I may agree with the desired result.

A political philosophy that tries to dictate to the people based on what politicians believe is “for their own good” is not conservative. It speaks to the same sort of arrogance and elitism that are the hallmarks of Progressivism. Sadly, Rick Santorum has stepped through that door. If he doesn’t backtrack on this, and explain that he really meant something he didn’t say, I may end up swinging my support over to Romney. And good Lord, I don’t want to do that.

%d bloggers like this: