Long known for his disdain of the “social” (I
prefer “moral”) issues, like many others, Boortz masquerades as libertarian
while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our
time.
Contrary to what self-described libertarians such as Boortz
and John
Stossel would have us believe, if conservatives simply shut up about issues
like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal
responsibility, there’s no guarantee when it comes to election time. It is a
long-held myth, typically perpetuated by self-described liberals in the
mainstream media but also by self-described libertarians, that whenever the
moral issues are prominent in elections, conservatives lose. As I have noted
before, Jeffrey Bell in his book The Case
for Polarized Politics helps dispel this myth.
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,”
notes Bell .
“The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had
the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues
came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican
Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
Bell concludes,
as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the
sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most
significant “social” issues in America
today are sexual issues. Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and
the like, are not hot political topics merely because they relate to people’s
personal lives. They are hot political topics because they reside deep within
the moral realm of our culture.
Whether liberals or libertarians admit it, somebody’s
morality is going to govern us. Libertarians would do well to examine America ’s
history before ranting about the morality of today’s [Christian] conservatives.
Like our founders, most conservatives today understand well that religion
(especially Christianity) is an indispensible tenet of liberty.
Additionally, and again contrary to popular myth and what
pundits like Mr. Boortz would have us believe, Christian conservatives aren’t
the aggressors in the so-called “culture wars.” It has been liberals with
the aid of those like-minded in our courts and our media who have forced their
moral views on our culture. Whether it’s abortion, the environment, public
displays of religion, marriage, or other issues, liberals have taken the view
of what is typically a small minority and imposed their will on the country.
In more ways than one, the results have been disastrous and
(speaking of debt) expensive. As an example, consider the environment and the
myth of man-made global warming. Starting out with a small minority, through
judicial fiat and a relentless media campaign, liberals began preaching that
through the use of fossil fuels, human beings were warming the globe and that
(of course) drastic political measures needed to be taken to “save the planet.”
Though most Americans do not consider global warming a significant issue for our government, decades of propaganda have taken a toll on our nation. For too long, conservatives didn’t do enough to combat the tactics of liberals on this issue, and today far too many Americans believe the lie that the actions of humans are warming the planet. So much so that, the last republican-elected president, George W. Bush, signed a significant piece of legislation that was premised on the notion of man-made global warming.
After signing the Energy Independence and Security Act,
President Bush declared, “Today…We make a major step toward reducing our
dependence on oil, confronting global climate change,
expanding production of renewable fuels and giving future generations a nation
that is stronger, cleaner and more secure.”
According to the New
York Times, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Bush’s sentiments
by describing “the bill as groundbreaking because it would reduce oil imports,
cut production of the gases that scientists blame for global warming and
significantly increase the efficiency of the nation’s auto fleet.”
Boortz would do well to note that this is what happens when
conservatives acquiesce to the positions of liberals. We get conservatives at
the highest level parroting liberal speak and the government spending billions
of dollars on a problem that doesn’t exist—even telling us what
light bulbs we can use. However, this is nothing compared to the slaughter
of tens of millions of children in the womb or the legal redefinition of the
institution upon which our republic rests.
So-called libertarians like Boortz can moan and groan about
the moral positions of “social” conservatives all they want, but it doesn’t
change the facts. All
law is rooted in some morality; thus somebody’s morality is going to
“determine the fate of this republic.” Libertarians need to decide with whom
it’s easier to live: those who share the morality of the vast majority of our
founders, who gave us the greatest document for self governance ever created by
men; or those who seek fundamentally to change this republic into something
that conservatives and libertarians both will lament.
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
No comments:
Post a Comment