Details, schmetails.

So here we are, discussing such things as "Ideological purity versus principled victory", and why small-L libertarians should vote for Republicans.  All good discussions to have.  But we actual conservatives are obviously getting lost in the details, and not thinking about what it means to be a "Big-C" Conservative.  As in what "The" "American" "Conservative" considers to fall within its big tent.

To wit, consider this piece that they published last week (and which I missed until today), entitled "Obama is a Republican".  As "proof" of that characterization, the author offers such things as Obama following through on W's commitment to pull the troops out of Iraq in 2011(!) and initiating the 2014 campaign against ISIS, the awesome budget austerity and deficit reduction on Obama's watch, Obamacare copying Romneycare (and we all know how conservative that was), Obama doing nothing to improve the economic conditions of blacks (IMO, that's as Democrat as it gets), and that Obama had to be pressured into coming out for SSM (like Brer Rabbit, I guess).  Here's the pull quote from that piece, AFAIAC:

I don't expect any conservatives to recognize the truth of Obama's fundamental conservatism for at least a couple of decades -- perhaps only after a real progressive presidency.

Either that guy is writing in NewSpeak, or he's overdrawn his account at Wick Allison's company store and is gunning for a bonus.   I sure hope there aren't many people who are wondering what it is that American Conservatives think, and who think they might find out from a 'zine named The American Conservative.

Then I guess this is like Nixon going to China.

Cardinal Dolan reports on the Synod

Over on his blog, Cardinal Dolan gives a quick summary on the Synod of the Family. Excerpt:

One such revelation is that He intends the gift and beauty of sexual love only for the loving relationship of a man and woman in lifelong, lifegiving (children!), faithful, marriage.

Such a bond is so radiant, He has revealed to us, that it actually hints at the infinite love enjoyed among Father, Son, and Spirit in the Blessed Trinity, and reflects the personal, passionate love God has for each of us.

Anyone who thought this synod could change that has not read Catholicism for Dummies. The Church does not change God’s revelation, but attempts to change us so we can live it.

What was refreshing, though, was a warm, gracious tone, so marvelously personified in Pope Francis, (who would tell us it’s hardly his style, but that of Jesus!), that the Church is at her best when she invites, embraces, understands, welcomes, and affirms, instead of excluding, judging, or condemning.

Family is a challenge, but it is pretty awesome to think of how we mirror the love of the Blessed Trinity. This is what I wrote about the Gift of Fatherhood on Facebook the other day: "I just want to say, pace Tim Cook, that I'm proud to be a virile heterosexual male human with six male offspring, and I consider being a virile heterosexual man with six male offspring among the greatest gifts God has given me."

Ideological purity versus principled victory

I like Ted Cruz, and I'm sure I would vote exactly the same as he does in the Senate. But this article presents facts and many quotes from Reagan to show exactly where his rhetoric is reality-challenged. His blind spot is shared by many in the conservative movement whom I greatly respect and admire, including Rush Limbaugh. Excerpt:

Cruz is fond of contrasting his stance with those of “Washington consultants” who allegedly say that “standing for principle is inconsistent with winning elections.” He says that there are only two approaches available to conservatives, theirs or his. But this is a false dichotomy.

Reagan knew that brazenly drawing a line in the sand for the American people was the worst way to combat the liberal establishment. He explained to the readers of National Review that Goldwater lost in 1964 because Democrats had portrayed conservatives as advocating “a radical departure from the status quo.” “Time now for the soft sell,” he said, “to prove our radicalism was an optical illusion.”

Reagan also knew that ideological purity is the enemy of principled victory. In 1967, speaking to a conservative grassroots group, then-governor Reagan set out his vision for the GOP:

"We cannot offer [to individualists] a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments. Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be."

Reagan knew that victory can come only by assembling a coalition of people, not all of whom will agree on every topic.

"Desperate they'd run any cretin"

Yay! 3BP enabled embedding. Read the lyrics here.

"It will come back to you."

Goofus and Gallant: Statist vs. Laissez-faire

I love Jon Gabriel's stuff, and with his Goofus & Gallant update, he has scored again. Check them all out; this is my favorite:

Huh, huh--he said phallocracy.

Millennials turning away from #OBOLA

Looks like Obama is helping his democrat friends lose the millennial vote.

Released by the Harvard Institute of Politics, the poll shows that 18 to 29-year-olds who say they will "definitetly be voting" next week plan to support Republicans by a margin of 51 to 47 percent.

In September 2010--just two months before the Republican landslides in those midterm elections--Republicans only had "43 percent" support among millennials.

Regarding Obama, only "43 percent" of millennials in general approve of the job he's done--"53 percent" disapprove. But when approval/disapproval questions are asked to millennials who will "definitely be voting" next week, Obama's approval slips down to "42 percent" and his disapproval jumps to "56 percent."

One of the biggest concerns for millennials is terrorism against the US. "61 percent" of millennials said they are "a great deal" or "somewhat" concerned with the prospect of another attack against the US. They also support the plan to "expand the US air campaign against ISIS" by a margin of "39 percent" to "20 percent."

Speaking of Libertarians

Since we are on the topic of libertarians (small 'l', if you please) I should point out an excellent piece on American Thinker by Doug Thorburn about why libertarians should vote for Republicans. Thorburn presents the case well, first highlighting the difficulties he has had with Republicans over the years, but then getting practical and results-oriented about it in the two concluding paragraphs:

Voting for Libertarian Party candidates today serves only to divide the vote between those who would slow (Republicans) or reverse (libertarians) the trend towards increasing statism. Splitting the vote allows those who would accelerate that trend to win by default. We need to support -- dare I say it? -- the lesser of the evils. While most votes require me to hold my nose, I get lucky now and then and truly support a candidate. I would love the opportunity to vote for a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, a Marco Rubio -- and suspect I will soon have such an opportunity. But we need to ensure Republicans -- even those we would never vote for in a sane world – win the Senate so that we can hold the line in the interim. We can’t afford to give another seat on the Supreme Court to a pseudo-liberal. The reign of Harry Reid, one of the most despicable statists ever to hold elected office, must end.

My pocketbook is walking the walk today. I am supporting, via monetary donations, libertarian-leaning Republicans and even non-libertarian Republicans in close races against statists/Democrats. This includes those running for Senate in Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina and New Hampshire and, for governor, in Wisconsin. (I sent a bit to Mia Love in Utah even though she’s winning handily in her congressional race, only because she should be the face of the Republican Party.) I’m considering sending financial support to Republican senators running in Louisiana and Georgia, but waiting until the expected runoffs. I implore other libertarians to vote for and monetarily support Republicans. If there is any chance to salvage some semblance of constitutional limited government, it must be tried. After 40+ years, it’s obvious the Libertarian Party, while serving as an educational platform, cannot win a major political office. The Republican Party is, faults and all, our only hope.

I wouldn't say the "lesser of the evils", but I know that's a coined phrase. I prefer to say "the better of the imperfect candidates" if I'm talking about, for example, voting for John Kasich rather than Ed FitzGerald. I mean, come on, FitzGerald isn't evil, just horribly misguided in his ideology and displaying awful judgment in his personal life. And I'd say the same about Obama and Sherrod Brown, for that matter.

Politics really is the art of the possible, Moreover primary season is the time to knock out GOP "company men" if you think they need to step aside for more dedicated conservatives or libertarians. No one would have thought to themselves a few years ago "Hey, I'll bet a libertarian-leaning no-name candidate could knock out Eric Cantor in a primary." But that's what happened. Hopefully small-l-libertarian Dave Brat will win the general, but there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, also. (Big 'L' -- for loser.) Hopefully people voting in that race will take Thorburn's advice and vote for someone with a chance to win.