May 13, 2008
On Special Elections
Recent GOP losses in Illinois and Louisiana have sent the GOP reeling, convinced the end is near. The end may in fact be near, but not because of special election losses.
Charlie Cook, hardly a Republican hack, explains:
The truth is that there are often unique or local circumstances that play an important role in determining the outcome of the election. They don’t call these contests “special” for nothing.
There are plenty of unique circumstances behind the victory of Democratic Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (Pronunciation hint: Think of a cashew but substitute zhew for shoe) in a district that President Bush carried with 55 and 59 percent in 2000 and 2004, respectively.
Republicans got saddled with a candidate who, to a certain extent, was the Pelican State’s answer to Florida’s former Rep. Katherine Harris.
Just as Harris couldn’t lose a statewide primary and couldn’t win a statewide general election, longtime conservative activist and former state legislator Woody Jenkins was very difficult to beat in a closed GOP primary but entered into a general election with a walk-in closet of political and personal baggage.
Jenkins came in on the short side of the 49-46 percent race, but a weekend in Baton Rouge last month convinced me that few thought Woody would win even then, though few thought he would lose badly either — the district is too Republican for that.
A generic Republican would have outperformed Woody.
Similarly, the GOP loss in March of Illinois’ 14th District — formerly held by Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and which President Bush won with 54 percent in 2000, 55 percent in 2004 — also featured another statewide loser of a Republican nominee, dairy magnate Jim Oberweis.
Oberweis brought his own complete set of Samsonite into the race, Democrats dubbed him “the Milk Dud,” and the voters went with now-Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill.
In both of these cases, again, there were unique circumstances: tough GOP primaries produced weak, ideological candidates.
I agree with this. Most people won’t remember or have read about this, but the GOP had some pretty good luck in special elections in 1978, including picking up a district on Manhatten of all places, only to have a mediocre showing in the midterm elections. Similarly, the GOP won a heavily Democratic district in California in early 1996. The fall was not so generous to the GOP.
On the other hand, Democratic years like 1932 and 1974, as well as Republican years like 1994 were all presaged by special election losses.
But for some recent history, consider the following: SD-AL, KY-06, LA-03, LA-05, TN-04. These are all heavily Bush districts that have gone Democrat in special elections or open house seats in 2002-04: The GOP heyday. There is also AL-03, a heavily Bush district which narrowly avoided the same fate in 2002, a mini-tsunami year for Republicans.
And finally, let us not forget a near-GOP upset in a heavily Kerry district (MA-05), and a double-digit GOP win in a heavily-contested GOP race in Northern Ohio last fall.
In other words, one should not over-interpret special election results. These tend to be localized events. To further illustrate the point, many have noted that MS-01 should not be a problematic race for the GOP, given the Republican pull of the state. This ignores the fact that this district, though heavily pro-Bush and anti-Kerry, is still substantially more Democratic at the local level (see also, LA-03, LA-05).
Look at the following maps. The first map is the map of Mississippi State Senate seats. The First Congressional District is superimposed as a thin black line encompassing the district. Senate Districts held by Republicans are highlighted in red, those by Dems in blue. As you can see, there are still more local legislators who are Democrats than there are Republicans. This area has not fully re-aligned yet.
The second map does the same for the state house. We see the same basic trend there.
You will also notice that the red districts tend to be concentrated in the Northwest portion of the district. These are Memphis suburbs. Dems do well in the Eastern portion of the state. And what the Democrat’s strategy in this race has been is to present himself as a pro-life, pro-gun, rural Democrat from Tupelo, running against the suburban Republican from the Memphis suburbs. His strategy has been to localize the election, not to run against Bush. The Republicans are furiously trying to nationalize this election. We’ll see who wins. Regardless, there are strong local forces at work in this election. We should not read too much of national importance into this election as a result. If you find yourself despairing tonight, ask yourself again how MA-05, and OH-05 this year, GOP losses in 2004 in SD and KY special elections, and in open seat general elections in TN-04, LA-5, and LA-03 in 2002 and 2004 fit into the narrative.
http://race42008.com/2008/05/13/on-special-elections/trackback/
May 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
But whose idea was it to bring Cheney to the district today to rally support for our guy? I’m convinced that’s not the best idea, even in the South at this point.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I would be worried about the special elections.
Here’s why. We don’t see voters rejecting conservative Republicans for liberal Democrats (implying campaign dynamics). We see voters rejecting Republicans for conservative Democrats.
In the House of Reps we’ve already got around 35 pro-life Democrats. In the Senate we’ve got 4 pro-life Democrat Senators and 4 Democrats that straddle the issue.
The movement of conservatives away from the GOP should be alarming.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Illinois has been trending blue for over a decade, and I wouldn’t read too much into the results there. The Suburbs are full of moderate/liberal Republicans.
The two Southern races may be darker harbingers for the GOP, far beyond this cycle. Starting in ‘06, the Democrats figured out that they will never win in the south and rural Midwest running clones of Pelosi and Kennedy, and decided to start actually letting socially conservative, fiscally conservative, economically moderate Democrats. That tidal wave of Southern support for the Republicans in the 1990s be be receding now, as regionally suited Democrats are winning. Without racially gerrymandered districts in the South, the Republicans would be in a lot worse trouble.
I guarantee you that you will start seeing more Travis Childers, Heath Schuler’s, and Don Cazayoux’s in the South, as well as more Joe Donally’s and Brad Ellsworth’s in the Midwest.
As a social and fiscal conservative, who is economically moderate myself (and none too happy about our foreign committments) I see this as a good thing.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Doug,
Did you notice that we wrote almost the same thing at the same time again?
May 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Speaking of open competetive Congressional elections, AL-2 and AL-5 are both open this November and both will probably see very competetive elections. AL-5(my district, representing all of North Alabama) was vacated by Bud Cramer, the founder of the moderate Blue Dog caucus in Congress. His hand picked successor is the very popular and moderate State Senator Parker Griffith. The GOP field in this district is crowded by 6 pretty ideological candidates locked in a very heated primary campaign, much like the LA special. AL-2 represents South East Alabama and the Montgomery area. This district is seeing much of the same thing with popular and moderate Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright facing a swath of GOP candidates in a heated primary. This seat will probably be a Dem gain in November.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Nathan,
Indeed, the Democrats are finally getting the South figured out, and are re-learning how to elect Democrats in white districts. They are starting to do the same in the rural Midwest, as evidenced by 3 Indiana seats and 1 or 2 Ohio seats they picked up in ‘06.
This may be the resurgence of the SoCon Democrat. In which case the GOP will have a harder time scaring SoCons into line every 2-4 years.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Great. Maybe the GOP can take a hint, and allow more pro-choice conservatives to run in the bluer states.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
MWS,
You definately right, people seem to forget that much of the South is still very populist. They support the Republicans in national elecions because of the social issues. Most middle class Southern whites dont care much for the GOP economic policies but are scared that the Kerrys an Obamas of the world will take their guns, mock their churches, and force gay marriage down their throats. The way the Dems win is by nominating strong, moderate, local candidates and letting the Republicans figth amongst themselves. The “Southern Realignment” is true only of nationa elections. As evidenced by the Alabama state legislature still being controlled heavily by the Democrats even since the Civil War. T In my opinion, the realignment was one of ideology( with the South lining up behind candidates supporting their conservative values) rather than party. And if the Dems, at least locally, swing back to the right the Gop could risk losing the solid south.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
#4 MWS, it’s eerie.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Metro:
That already happened in Rhode Island in 2006 and is happening in Oregon this year.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
There are at least 20 pro-choice Republicans in the House and 3 in the Senate.
How pro-choice do you want?
Was voting to confirm Alito too conservative for you?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
20 in the House and 3 in the Senate? That’s nothing! The GOP is 1/3 pro-choice for God’s sake!
Alito is a good judge, and I’m on record supporting him, though I prefer Roberts.
Why don’t we have more successful CEO’s running? Because most of them are economic conservatives who are not members of the religious right, and thus they are denied party support to run for office. It’s an absolute disgrace. The best talent in our nation — shut out of politics by backwards ideologies.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Metro, we’ve run a few dozen CEOs in the last six years. Most of them lose even when they pump tons of money into their campaigns.
Pete Coors, Doug Forrester (the other one), Jim Oberweis, Jack Ryan…
The list goes on.
That’s why we don’t push them forward anymore.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Metro,
“Maybe the GOP can take a hint, and allow more pro-choice conservatives to run in the bluer states.”
Right, and after that, maybe we can sell our souls on slavery, too.
The reason I’m happy to see pro-life Democrats win, is I want this issue resolved on the side of protecting life. It is the same reason I like to see pro-abortion Republicans lose. I want two pro-life parties, just as we have two anti-slavery parties.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Also, as you know, many Republicans in Congress aren’t REALLY pro-life, they just knew they had to pretend to be in order to have a political career. That’s why so many converted shortly before running for office.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Two pro-life parties, when over 50% of the nation is pro-choice?
When the issue is framed interms of zygote rights, the nation is overwhelmingly pro-choice.
Get a clue.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Doug, that’s because the most talented ones never run in the first place. They can’t stomach the religious right, or the socialist Democrats.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Metro,
In other words, I can compromise over tax and trade policy. I cannot compromise over protecting human life.
On the other you take the position that we can compromise on human life, but not tax and trade.
Ironic you consider protecting life to be “backward ideology,” when before the Christian era, infanticide was quite accepted and common. Modern pro-choicers are like retread pagan Romans.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
You know very well I am for the supremacy of human rights, and opposed to collectivism as my first political premise.
And you know very well our difference is that I, believing in individual rights, believe that being born is a prerequisite to being an individual.. and that a pregnant woman is most certainly an individual.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Metro,
“When the issue is framed interms of zygote rights, the nation is overwhelmingly pro-choice.”
Giving unborn children anotherlabel for the purpose of dehumanizing them (a tactic also used by slave traders and Nazis) doesn’t make them any less alive, or any less human.
I could call you a frumpatumpalous, but that wouldn’t give me the moral right to kill you.
And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, your beloved CEOs aren’t doing so hot with even their own companies, unless you judge them by the golden parachutes they pull after losing the stockholders billions.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Human beings have intrinsic worth. Individuality is irrelevant.
I don’t think one Siamese twin should be able to murder his sibling for liberty’s sake.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
A zygote is a fricking fertilized egg, not a BABY. Even a child could tell the difference.
Oh gee, you take the opportunity to smear CEOs. You belong in the Democratic party. What we have in common is I applaud pro-lifers moving to the Democratic party! Don’t let the door hit you!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Metro,
“I, believing in individual rights, believe that being born is a prerequisite to being an individual.”
With all that we know about human genetics, that sounds kinda arbitrary and anti-scietific to me. Kind of liking saying an “individual” must be white, or over 6 ft. tall, or own a 4 wheel drive vehicle, or shoot par golf, or like Barry Manilow, etc…..
May 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Metro,
Even if you can successfully de-humanize a human fertilized egg in your own mind, you must know that most babies who are dissolved in utero or sliced to ribbons have a heartbeat, arms, legs, etc…..
But my, if anyone says anything negative about your infallible and precious CEOs, you get quite testy! I wish you were half as concerned about the dignity and intrinsic worth of human life as you are the honor of CEOs who get hundred of millions of dollars for losing their shareholders billions.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Rights are based on the need for *individual* thought and action. You speak from your moral high ground, placing life above liberty, while ignoring the fact that a right to life without a right to liberty is meaningless: It’s a prescription for communism. People are alive in slave pens.
Why the hell are you attacking ALL business leaders, based on a few examples? (Which I have defended before, and demonstrated you were totally off base, in any case?) Your precious babies rely on capitalism for their nutrients, medications, etc, etc. Yet you attack those who make everything possible for us. That tells a lot about YOUR morality.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
MWS, what would it take for you to become a Democrat?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Metro, I’m not sure what you mean by “liberty”. I’ve heard people use the word in _many_ different ways. If you’d define what YOU mean I’d appreciate it.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The right to liberty is the right to action, short of coercing others and infringing on their similar right to action.
But I actually made a mistake. It is the right to life itself that gives us ownership over our own bodies. So the abortion question is fundamentally not the right to life vs the right to liberty, but the right to life itself.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
You know, over the months I’ve offered ways in which SoCons and EconCons/libertarians could co-exist within the GOP. I’ve also offered explanations for how the expulsion of SoCons would be made up for by millions of metro people who like markets but see the religious right as unthinking bigotry that must not be sanctioned in any way.
On the flip side, I don’t see SoCons ever allowing for how to deal with we EconCons/libertarians.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Ok, metro. Our discussion is a bit meaningless since I think a “right to action” is a contradiction. A unbridgeable chasm exists between us where only meaningless messages can cross the distance in either direction.
Your philosophical assumptions are factually false from my perspective.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I see Socons as having dealt with economic conservatives for the last 28 years.
We allow EconCons their low taxes and reduced regulation in return for restraining the federal government from pushing 1960’s hippie social values.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I often wonder if the pissing matches on this site signal the beginning of the end of the red/blue divide as we know it.
Metro and Alex have to fantasize about a secular, capitalist, free-market GOP (see: Rudy), while ACT and MWS, and to a lesser extent, Doug, must dream of an Evangelical, populist, protectionist GOP (see: Huck). Or am I misreading ideologies here? It seems the only thing really holding us together is the hatred/fear of Islamofascism.
I question what it would take to turn the parties back to where they were around 1900, where the GOP was where Metro wants it and the Democrats were where MWS and ACT want the Republican Party.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Metro, you DO know that, biologically-speaking, a fetus is a separate entity from the mother the moment cell division begins, don’t you? I will not argue that this, in and of itself, entitles a fetus (or zygote, as you seem to prefer) to the HUMAN status of protections, but wish to correct a common misconception often used to justify looking the other way. If you want details and discussion on distinct biological indicators (based in science, not religion), , let me know.
As for CEOs not making up a large number of candidates (and I’d agree that, with their life experience, they should be good choices for Congress), I think the fact of the matter is that many of them are just too busy doing what they do best to be bothered with running for Congress. Why take the paycut, especially when it means you virtually have to abandon your business to do so? I’m thinking it would take a flawed CEO to decide on gov’t over business in the first place!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The Republican party is and should remain larger than “Evangelicals”. I say that as a non-Evangelical.
I don’t see populism or protectionism as long-term fixes for Republicans. Something bigger and ideologically weirder is probably necessary.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
BTW, I thought I had dealt with the notion that Dems didn’t know how to win in the conservative districts pretty effectively. 1994 was the aberration for the GOP sweeping southern seats. In 1996 Dems won open seats in heavily conservative districts like then-MS-04, TX-01, TX-02, FL_02, VA-05, NC-07, etc. You have LA-03, LA-05, TN-04, SD-AL, KY-06 in the 2000s.
And those state Senate and state House seats in MS-01 aren’t all recent pickups for Dems either.
This is just off the top of my head.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Doug, how on earth is a right to action a contradiction? There is no concept of rights without actions!
AdamPSU, sounds fantastic!
RichardM, the fetus is INSIDE the mother, and the mother is an actual human being with rights over her body. THAT is the issue, not the biology.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I think George Bush is partly responsible for this intra-party falling out. If he didn’t spend like a drunken sailor and reflexively go too over the top with his dumber instincts (like allowing Terri Schiavo to become a federal issue) it would have been easier to keep the factions on the reservation in the short term. Then again, now that communism has collapsed and the GWOT has faded as a political issue, the split was bound to happen sooner or later.
That’s a REALLY good question. I would bet that in a vacuum we’d already be seeing this. As noted in the comments above, Democrats are starting to figure out how to win congressional elections in the south by moving to the right on social issues - or at least not shunning those candidates running to the right in socially conservative districts. This probably would continue on its own - but it won’t. Once the Democrats gain enough power you’ll see groups like NARAL and NOW go after these southerners with ferocity. They’ll primary them - intimidate them and generally just make their lives a living hell - sort of like what Club For Growth has been doing to moderate GOPers from the Northeast on the other side of the aisle. Then they’ll go too far and lurch too far to the left. The Republicans will welcome these so-cons back with open arms, to the chagrin of Metro and Alex (and yes, me). The Democrats will have begun to overreach and be looked at as “out of touch” again in the border states and the South itself and the GOP will be on the ascent all over again.
So in answer to your question - I don’t think it’s possible. I think the current vicious cycle will just continue over and over again.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Adam, coalitions just don’t last that long, historically speaking.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Metro,
True enough. I should say that I don’t think it’s possible for this to change anytime soon - as long as the special interests on both sides continue to dig in. Then again - perhaps a decade or two in the wilderness might make the Republicans rethink their priorities.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ok, Metro, not concerned with the biology? Fine, though I’m just going to have to disagree with looking at it that way. How about from the perspective of freedom?
With freedoms and rights come responsibilities, and pregnancy is no exception. I accept that, in cases where pregnancy wasn’t the choice of the mother (rape), or if a larger issue is involved (severe health/life of mother), the responsibilities change. However, pregnancy isn’t an accident, and it isn’t something that “just happens.”
I fully believe, however, that we aren’t talking just about the mother’s responsibility for her actions, but also the father’s. The best compromise the courts have come up with for that responsibility is financial, and seeking to avoid this responsibility is why more men favor abortion, and with less restrictions, than women.
AdamPSU, I’m still hoping for the general dissolution of the 2 party system as it exists, as I don’t think it serves the ideological needs of its adherents. People say “I’m a Rep,” or “I’m a Dem” as if that actually means something nowadays. It’s little more than political gang warfare.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Richard, that’s a reasonable path. You’re much better off not talking about baby-murdering, when you’re trying to convince people, or making exceptions in the cases of rape or incest, or not wanting to prosecute women for first-degree murder.
I like the responsibility argument. It’s why I disfavor late-term abortions and am open to restrictions on such. There is plenty of time for responsibility to be taken before then.
But it’s unreasonable to hold women responsible for day-old zygotes when contraception is not foolproof — unless your real goal is a war against sex per se. And I’m sure some like Doug F are just fine with that.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Metro,
“Rights are based on the need for *individual* thought and action.”
From wence come these rights? A Creator? A transcendent moral order? A contract?
If someone does not have, in your opinion, a sufficient “need” for “thought and action,” have they forfeited their rights?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Metro,
“But it’s unreasonable to hold women responsible for day-old zygotes when contraception is not foolproof — unless your real goal is a war against sex per se.”
It is those who seek to thwart one of the primary purposes of sex which wage war against sex, Metro, not those who defend the right of children to live. Your statement is filled with irony, and an example of the “culture of narcissism” about which I spoke on another thread. Our culture is so embued with the spirit of hedonism and self gratification that you can right- without a hint of irony or contradiction- that those who suppose sex has something to do with procreation are the wage who wage “war against sex per se.”
What an upside down world we live in.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Metro,
To put it more bluntly, contraception itself is a form of “war against sex.”
May 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
#44: An example of someone who is out of his freaking mind.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Metro, I’ve never understood the exception for incest. It’s repugnant, and it increases dramaticaly the chance for birth defects (and lower IQ), but if it isn’t rape, then it was their choice. I just can’t judge differently actions I detest, but only have a real impact on those involved in it.
As for abortion itself, then, you are at least neutral to the concept of a dividing line before birth. A very Roe manner of looking at it. However, with the general effectiveness and availability of contraceptives, you are essentially supporting general policy based on exceptions, which I think is the wrong way to go about things.
As for screaming “baby killer!” and prosecuting for murder, I think it’s unwarranted (and counter-productive) to do so, and even legally tenuous until a legal definition of life be made. As is, we end up talking about very different things when using the same words, which means there will never be an agreement of any kind.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Richard M, you have the makings of a person who could lead the pro-live movement to actual success.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Metro,
“#44: An example of someone who is out of his freaking mind.”
Perhaps. But if sex doesn’t have anything to do with procreation, why do people have to take such drastic measures to avoid having children when they have sex?
If you accept my premise that procreation is naturally linked to sex (and I have a lot of pharmaceutical companies to back me up on that), then do you think it was a mistake on the part of God, nature, or whomever, to link sex and procreation?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Needs aren’t normative.
Rights exist from a different moral framework.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Metro,
Let me try to put this another way. You used the phrase “at war with sex per se” todesribe those who would defend human life. On the contrary, I would suggest that those who seek to thwart the natural outcome of sex, to try to reform the nature of sex itself to suits one’s own will, is to wage war on sex PER SE.
Now, you may well see this war as I good thing, such as how my wife wages war on bacteria with Lysol, or how Jonas Salk waged war on polio (both also naturally occuring), but I would disagree. I think the complete separation of the form and function of sex is an unhealthy divorce of “rights” with responsibilities. It is akin to those men who want to sire children, but not raise them.
You may call me crazy (again), but I would refer you to the teachings and thoughts of virtually any Christian thinker (prior to 100 years ago, or current if they are Catholic), as well as any philosopher who believes in natural law.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I truly can’t believe we are having the argument in 2008 of whether sex without wanting to conceive is morally OK or not.
I’m not arguing that people should be going out and having wanton sex anywhere, anytime they please, but please don’t tell me I am going to hell for wanting to have sex with my fiancee of five years but not wanting to conceive a child because of our current financial situation (grad school is F-U-N!).
May 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Government has no role in prohibiting or regulating fornication.
All I care about is that human beings aren’t killed for convenience. I may have convictions about using contraceptives but they seem too close to adiaphorous to justify government action.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Doug,
To be clear, I am not advocating government intervention in fornication or contraception. I was noting the inherent contradiction (philosophically) with Metro’s advocation of contraception and accusation that others are “at war with sex per se.”
May 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
AdamPSU,
“please don’t tell me I am going to hell for wanting to have sex with my fiancee of five years but not wanting to conceive a child because of our current financial situation”
Well, the judgement of your soul is WAY above my paygrade, so I’ll just note that contrary to popular belief, divorce rates among those who cohabitate before marriage is significantly higher than among those who don’t. I’m NOT suggesting anything about you or your fiancee, just giving an example of how *private* sexual attitudes spill over into public, social problems.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Metro and Alex have to fantasize about a secular, capitalist, free-market GOP (see: Rudy), while ACT and MWS, and to a lesser extent, Doug, must dream of an Evangelical, populist, protectionist GOP (see: Huck). Or am I misreading ideologies here? It seems the only thing really holding us together is the hatred/fear of Islamofascism.
I fantasize about such a thing, but I’d like it to remain a fantasy, as it would never win. Rudy isn’t a hardliner on issues of secularism or on issues of capitalism — as is how it should be, because I’m a pragmatist, and I’d like to get 70% of what I want while compromising rather than 0% of what I want while staying super-principled.
That is what’s holding us together as a party, yes.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
If you accept my premise that procreation is naturally linked to sex (and I have a lot of pharmaceutical companies to back me up on that), then do you think it was a mistake on the part of God, nature, or whomever, to link sex and procreation?
No; it played a very vital role in the propagation of the species — pleasure via sexual contact provided an enormous incentive to have children! And on that note, it’s not an accident that men are more sexual than women: men can inseminate myriad women at a time, while a woman can only be pregnant once in a nine-month period.
But we’re no longer primitive beings, and having sex for pleasure can be a wonderful thing, provided proper, safe measures are provided.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Er, I used the word ‘provided’ twice in six words. Strike that second ‘provided’ and replace it with ‘utilized.’
Okay, I feel better now.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
MWS,
I have some anecdotal theories as to why that might be the case, but this is not the forum for it.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
MWS, I think we agree in principle that Metro’s philosophy has no future. It simply doesn’t produce enough children to sustain it or enough courage to risk defending it.
We’ll either have an openly religious and pluralistic US or we’ll have one ruled by Imams. Extreme secularism is now and never has been up to the challenge of Islam. Read Alexander Solzhenitsyn address to Yale to see the scope of our problem.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Alex,
And so we have broken the chains of such “evolutionary” mechanisms and march boldly forward to The End of History!!!!
Or something like that is what you are basically saying?
While I would never deny the unitive and pleasure giving functions of sex (though I wouldn’t put in within the context of evolutionary determinism), as I think they are vitally important, have you ever considered whether divorcing the procreating aspect of sex might have any negative (if even unintended) consequences? Or are we truly the Masters of Everything, capable not only of forming our own will, but of choosing our own consequences?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Doug,
I would add that extreme secularism, without the aid of Islam, will always consume itself. It is built on premises contrary to human nature, is built upon theories without grounding in experience, and manifests itself in attitudes, mores, and institutions that are ultimately destructive to society.
To wit, that is why Europe is dying, and if it continues on its current course, within a couple generations there will effectively be no Europe.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Religious fundamentalism vs. moral relativism (Europe) is the biggest false dichotomy in the world.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
But if it comes down to thwarting Islamofacism, I’ll readily join forces with the less offensive Christian fundamentalists to defeat the Islamic fundamentalists.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I always find abortion/sex discussions fascinating. I find myself agreeing with most of what MWS and Doug say, but I’m inclined to agree with Metro about the potential damage such strident arguments do to the pro-life movement.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
My cat’s breath smells like catfood.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
#59: “MWS, I think we agree in principle that Metro’s philosophy has no future. It simply doesn’t produce enough children to sustain it or enough courage to risk defending it.”
My philosophy is that of reason, freedom and Western civilization. You can’t argue with its results. Classical civilization and the Enlightenment produced relative freedom and enormous advances in human knowledge. The Christian Dark Ages and Islamofascism produced the opposite.
America has never had a shortage of those wishing to defend her, and they did so out of love for what she stands for, not out of duty to God.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
And so we have broken the chains of such “evolutionary†mechanisms and march boldly forward to The End of History!!!!
Or something like that is what you are basically saying?
While I would never deny the unitive and pleasure giving functions of sex (though I wouldn’t put in within the context of evolutionary determinism), as I think they are vitally important, have you ever considered whether divorcing the procreating aspect of sex might have any negative (if even unintended) consequences? Or are we truly the Masters of Everything, capable not only of forming our own will, but of choosing our own consequences?
Why does having sex for pleasure mean that we’d have to abandon sex for procreation..? Silly little dichotomy. We can have both.
Perhaps you don’t want to be master of your own body, but I do…
May 13th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Alex, I forgot to make that point, since it’s obvious to all thinking people, and only the uber-crazies would see it as a dichotomy.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Alex,
It’s not a question whether we “have to” or not. We’re well past that point. We ARE. There’s that whole 1.3 children per woman death spiral birthrate business going on in every corner of Europe. And Japan. And China. And pretty much every place other then the Yankee, gun-wielding, religion grasping, America.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
There’s nothing inherently bad about low birth rates.
It’s just that Muslims are growing at such a fast rate.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Alex, low birth rates stifle economic growth and lead to deflationary traps. It has occurred time after time.
If we continue to have a low birth rate we won’t have a strong economy.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Doug,
I honestly do not mean this in a dickish way: do you have a link to show that? I don’t see why, intuitively, that low birth rates would stifle economic growth and lead to deflationary traps.
I should clarify. I see it in a labor intensive economy. But why in an increasingly automated, white collar economy?
If you framed the argument in terms of some demographics having high birthrates vs. native-born Americans having low birthrates and the population changing because of that, I can see it more.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I have to put in links one at a time.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/asiaforum/download/visions.pdf
May 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
testing
May 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
AdamPSU the website is blocking additional html from posting…
May 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The life cycle theory of consumption (and saving) provides the explanation for what we see beginning Europe.
I’d suggest you visit a good blog by two Economists called “Demography Matters”.
These two are by no means social conservatives.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
That’s fine, Doug. I’ll check the link in the morning. The whole birth rate thing is something that I’ve been concerned about since reading about France’s increasing Muslim population and it wanted me to learn more about this. Thanks.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
*and it made me want to learn more about this. Heh.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Metro, while I currently have no desire to lead the movement at this time, I appreciate the compliment. I firmly believe that talking the same language in an argument is the best way to have a productive argument. My last note on our argument is that noting contraceptives aren’t 100% sounds kind of like arguing a bet against Sen Obama winning the nomination shouldn’t have to pay if Sen Clinton ends up with the nomination on the basis that it wasn’t foolproof.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
[...] Tuesday, I wrote that election in MS-01 really should not be considered a portent of anything. Most people disagreed with my analysis, [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You’re right, these three special elections don’t mean a thing. Keep up the great work!