In Politics Check you Values at the Door

One addition, only if you happen to be religious. Only the religious can be pummeled in the press for their values. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House attempts to legislate compassion and good deeds though public policy. Those are her values and she stands for election in her district every two years. Barak Obama campaigned for two years by telling us what his values were and how he was going to shape public policy toward those values. Celebrities tell us constantly what their values are and demand that they pay no commercial price if their values don't correspond with that of their employeers and patrons. All of this is legitimate albeit occasionally annoying to me.

Those examples aside from the examples set in California after the defeat of proposition 8 we are to believe that if you happen to work toward your values and you happen to be Mormon in this case (but likewise observant Christians and Jews have the same results in other issues) you should not be allowed to donate money, man telephones etc. in support of your values. Pickets are massed outside of Mormon places of worship, McCarthyite tactics employed against people who happened to contribute to the defeat of Prop 8. All this from the people that tell us that they are compassionate and inclusive.

This is not a new subject and I encourage you to read Jonah Goldberg's take on this subject here.
The demonstrators and nut roots involved have taken it upon themselves to cleanse the Republican party of social conservatives. My personal belief is that social conservatives have taken too much of the front line in the party but should not be expelled as some are calling for. That being said what right do left wing activists have to say anything about it. The Republican party is doing a fine job of destroying themselves thank you very much. OK that last line was a little tongue in cheek but the point is taken.

My main point is one I have made for a long time and that is religious people should not and cannot be allowed to be shut out of the political process just because they are religious. We do not and should not allow religious sermons in defense of a candidate (although Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton seem to be allowed). We do not and should not allow a state religion as the constitution prohibits. We must not however allow religious people to be shut out of the process. They should have the same right as everyone else. The left wing needs to be brought back to reality. We need to have media that can do this.

As for values the left wing activists mostly base their values on the fact that they are not religious. Why should they have a greater share of the power just because they are not religious? As long as theology is not being legislated all cards should be on the table. If Jim Dobson wants to be political and does it with his own time and money he should be allowed. How is that any different that Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen constantly using their celebrity to preach to the rest of us how we should practice compassion? There is no difference. I expect that left wing people are not more willing to listen to Jim Dobson that I am to listen to Sarandon and Sheen. That is fine with me, just don't try to shut either side out.

How did we get here? part III

I have written in two previous posts about how we came to elect the most liberal candidate in our history to the presidency. I spoke of the gradual move away from free market economics to where we are today. I want to focus now on who got us here.

I think one group has to be credited/blamed. The Republican party. The Democrats have long espoused the use of public policy for purposes of compassion. This is their defining characteristic. With the exception of Ronald Reagan and the years of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, the Republicans have been mostly unable to explain why free markets and limited government is a goal to work toward. In the most recent election period John McCain was so unable to explain the benefits of limited government that most moderates and left leaning centrists were left with no choice in the face of the liquidity and banking crisis but to vote for the liberal.

Most people when choosing between two alternative candidates that have very little difference will vote for the candidate that explains his position the best. As much as I hate to admit it that was Barak Obama. He used his formidable language skills to paint himself as the candidate that will do something about the problems facing out economy, even though government cannot improve the economy, only harm it. From there it is up to individuals.

Over the years with the previous noted exception the Republicans have been the 'me-too but cheaper' party. That has left voters with the belief (rightly I believe) that they do not believe in limited government, just more limited that the Democrats. George W. Bush expanded the spending to a degree that there is no one that can believe he has belief in limited government. The net effect is that the people have for the most part voted for the party that most eloquently defined their beliefs. That happens not to be the party that talks and talks about limited government and then turns around and expands government to the extreme.