On Social Issues, Neal Boortz is Lost

While substituting for Sean Hannity recently, Neal Boortz went into another of his “libertarian” rants against “social” conservatives. Taking note of the recent flak involving Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, while pleading that the fate of the republic may depend upon republicans retaking the U.S. Senate, Boortz forebodingly predicted that republicans would fail in this task because, “they [republicans] simply cannot resist the urge, the impulse to get into this social conservatism.”

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.

America’s “Schoolmaster” Noah Webster bore this out in his 1832 History of the United States when he wrote that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.” Webster rightly concluded that, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”

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

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Learning the Hard Way

Having four children 10 and under offers plenty of intimate, hands-on lessons on human nature. For example, sometimes, in spite of Michelle’s and my best efforts, good parental instruction is ignored and hard lessons have to be learned. I’m not talking about situations that lead to enforced discipline, but rather those that result in sad and tough natural consequences.

A good recent example for us is one that many families have experienced: the misplaced bike. What happens in this case is that the child not only fails to put away his bike properly, but leaves it in such a place that it is run over by the family car. Of course, much sadness and sorrow ensue, but this is also a great opportunity for learning.

A great biblical example of learning things the hard way is the parable of the lost son. In this story, Jesus described a father with two sons. The younger son approached his father and demanded his share of the estate. Shorty after this, the younger son took all he had and left for a distant land. There he “squandered his wealth in wild living.” After losing all he had and staring at starvation and poverty, the son “came to his senses,” repented of his sins, and humbly returned to his father.

I’m afraid that similar such hard lessons loom for this nation.

After winning on November 6, gloating liberals boldly declared, “The right has lost the culture war.” Who could blame them for such a conclusion? In spite of a weak economy and terrible employment numbers, Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history and the only sitting U.S. president to declare support for same-sex marriage, easily won reelection.

Harry Enten of the UK Guardian concluded that, “The 1990s culture wars were fought over many social issues that many on the right thought were being redefined from their traditional normals by progressive activists and the liberal media for the next generation. Three of the key points of contention were abortion, gay rights, and recreational drug use. The results from last Tuesday's election indicates that the right is losing the war on these three issues.”

In addition to Obama’s reelection, the results that form such thinking are as follows: For the first time ever, voters in U.S. states (Maine, Maryland, and Washington) approved same-sex marriage. Voters in two states (Colorado and Washington) passed ballot measures that allow for the recreational use of marijuana. Wisconsin elected America’s first openly gay U.S. senator. What’s more, the GOP lost two very winnable senate races (Indiana and Missouri) partly due to their candidates’ inability properly and intelligently to articulate the pro-life position when it comes to abortion in the rare case of pregnancy due to rape.

Liberals have also declared themselves the winners in the “class war.” Writing for New York magazine, Jonathan Chait noted that, “Like every president, Obama won for myriad reasons, important and petty. But his reelection was hardly small and hardly devoid of ideas. Indeed, it was entirely about a single idea. The campaign, from beginning to end, was an extended argument about economic class.”

In spite of the class warfare, as I noted just after the election, I’m convinced that millions of Americans voted for Obama, et al, for no other reason than for their support of legalized killing of children in the womb, and for their support of perverted (same-sex) marriage. Too many Americans want the social and legal approval of sex without consequences.

What liberals forget, or choose to ignore, is that even if such social and legal protections are achieved, this does not remove the tough natural consequences of immoral behavior. In other words, winning elections isn’t going to bring back a child killed in the womb or cure the many diseases that stem from illicit sexual activity.

Along with the loss of a life, the sad consequences of an abortion are myriad. According to National Right to Life, women having an abortion face more than a doubled risk of future sterility along with an increased risk of future miscarriages. Thirteen out of 17 studies in the U.S. reported an increase in breast cancer among women choosing abortion. Abortion has also been associated with cervical and ovarian cancer.  

Besides the physical trauma, many post-abortive women are doomed to a lifetime of guilt and pain, with common experiences such as depression, anxiety, self-hatred, loneliness, and hopelessness. A 1995 study revealed that women who have had an abortion are 89% more likely to abuse their other children.

Just as one can’t violently end a pregnancy without suffering some consequences, a culture can’t redefine the foundational institution of human society without suffering for it. (And remember, libs, ANY definition of marriage is discriminatory.) Even without same-sex marriage, the destruction of the traditional (biblical) family unit is already well underway.

The number of U.S. households headed by unmarried adults now outnumbers those led by married adults. Also, more than half of all American children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock. In addition to this, 41% of all births in the U.S. are out of wedlock. This includes 29% of white children born to unmarried mothers, along with 53% of Hispanics and 73% of black children.

Of course, as I have noted before, the push for same-sex marriage has little to do with marriage. Marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle that many Americans find immoral (and, as I have noted, dangerous).

Then there is the inevitable consequence of a nation living well beyond its means. Make no mistake about it, for far too many Americans, the primary function of the U.S. government is to provide income, food, housing, and health care. As Robert Samuelson recently reported, “In 2011, ‘payments for individuals’ including health care, constituted 65 percent of federal spending, up from 21 percent in 1955. That's the welfare state.”

Much in the media has been made recently of the “fiscal cliff” facing the U.S. Almost certainly, Congress and the President will come to some agreement and the media will report that we have “stepped back from the brink.” However, it is very unlikely that much will be done to deal with the trillions in debt that the “welfare state” has wrought.

Whoever wins elections does nothing to change the natural consequences of disobeying what is often referred to as Natural Law. There is no getting around it; human beings were meant to behave themselves in a certain way. When we violate the standards set by Natural Law, or when our own laws are in conflict with Natural Law, hard consequences await. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes, and as in the parable of the lost son, to return to what is right.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com