Thursday, February 17, 2011

What Would A Real Truce On Social Issues Look Like?

Andrew Sullivan goes after Rush and seems to like GOP 2012 possible hopeful Gov Mitch Daniels.

The fact that Sullivan is attacking Rush on the basis of the culture war or character assassination is pretty funny since Sullivan engages in that in spades.

I am actually kinda of surprised that Rush chimed in on the social issues. Maybe he felt like throwing a bone to a part of his base It never seems to me to be the main part of his arguments.

Anyway what would a TRUE truce on social issues that Mitch Daniels says he wants be like? First to be a true truce it cannot be unilateral disarmament by one side while the other side ATTACK ATTACKS ATTACKS.

If someone wanted to have a TRUE TRUCE then one would have to say this:

"I am running to address the fiscal disaster this nation is headed for. As such, there are some issues for which I may have an opinion but which I will specifically NOT address if elected. As such, if you are pro-choice and that is among your most important issues; don't vote for me. If you are pro-life and it is one of your most important issues, don't vote for me. Same for being pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage.

Should I be elected and a bill addressing such issues crosses my desk, I will veto it. IE, if a bill restricting abortion reaches my desk, I will veto it. If one expanding it reaches my desk, I will veto it.

If a bill deal withs DADT or gays in the military it will be vetoed. If a bill deals with the limitation of rights of Civil Unions or the expansions of the Civil Unions it will be vetoed. If a bill deals with the limitation or expansion of Federal rights regarding workplace discrimination it will be vetoed. If a bill deals with Hate Crimes and sexual orientation it will be vetoed. ETC ETC

In other words, my administration will be focused on the most critical issue of the day. The overwhelming growth of our federal government and the accompanying excessive spending that goes with it. It is THIS issue that threatens ALL of our freedoms and as such, concerns over the aforementioned issues are luxuries this nation cannot afford. Thank you."

Of course what exactly is a social issue is kinda of fuzzy? Is drug use an social issue or an economic issue or a general welfare issue. What about PORN?

Then we have the matter of the Court system that I suspect will not go along with this truce by not taking cases that deal with "social issues". Would a no "social issues" President take a pass or use his position to make sure the GOVT advocated for a Status Que across the board position on all this matters till the "crisis" was resolved.

Further what about the fifth estate? Shall the Paper of the record the New York Times and publications such as Newsweek quit doing endless op eds and pieces on how the mean ole Catholic Church is mean to gays and women that want to abort.

Then what about the States? Those 50 little labs where this is all bubbles and all the cities within them. Will they stand by this truce.

Problems Problems Problems. However before we get to those problem a future President's remarks like the above would go no where with the "left" . They view these concerns as real evil that must be addressed.

However that is what a real truce would have to sort of look like. Now of course it can be argued if such a truce would be a good idea? I suspect not but that is partly what a person would have to do.

Would Andrew Sullivan join that? I am doubtful.


Jay Anderson said...

It won't work because one of the most important legacies of a President is Supreme Court picks, who often stay on the Court for decades after the President who appointed them has left office.

What kind of Supreme Court pick does a President who has invoked such a truce make? There is NO MIDDLE GROUND: you either believe Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct and that abortion on demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy will remain the law of the land, or you believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue should go back to the states and the people to decide what retrictions, if any, should be placed on abortion. (The Supreme Court will NEVER outlaw abortion, so we just do away with that Kmieckian canard right now.)

It is also likely that the Supreme Court will decide the issue of same-sex "marriage" in the upcoming years. The sort of Justice that conservative will demand is the sort of Justice who will say there is no constitutional "right" for two people of the same sex to "marry" one another. The sort of Justice the left will demand is the sort who will support a "fundamental right" to same-sex "marriage".

There is NO COMMON GROUND to be had when it comes to judicial appointments. The truce simply would not work.

James H said...

Exactly !! I mean how do you avoid "social" issues as to the Court. You can't. And appointments to the Bench are a HUGE part even though under reported (besides the Sup Court) part of what a Prez does