Norman Lear, social...conservative?

This is good to hear, but, Huh? Wasn't expecting this.

“Everybody knows me to be a progressive or a liberal or lefty or whatever. I think of myself as a bleeding-heart conservative. You will not f— with my Bill of Rights, my Constitution, my guarantees of political justice for all. But does my heart bleed for those who need help and aren’t getting the justice that the country promises them and the equal opportunity the country promises? Yes. I’m a bleeding heart, but I think myself to be a total social conservative. The people who are running just don’t seem to have America on their minds, not the America I think about. When I was a kid we were in love with America. As early as I can remember, there was a civics class in my public school. And I was in love with those things that guaranteed freedom before I learned that there were people who hated me because I was Jewish. I had a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, those words out of the Declaration that protected me.

Elvis sings about civility

Elvis remembers the good old days (in this rare recording) when people cared about their neighbors. It's a good reminder about civility and also a good opportunity to point out that part of what social conservatives strive for goes beyond Roe v. Wade, it goes to things like the Golden Rule.  Elvis, sings about a time when the Golden Rule was followed far more regularly then in his day, and certainly than today.

That's not to say the Golden Rule isn't alive and somewhat well.  That's a good thing too, it makes reclaiming that sort of notion as a defining principle of the nation more achievable.

Dr. Zero's Essential Fusion Reaction

Over at Hot Air today, Dr. Zero has a great article about the Essential Fusion of social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. Cue the applause. It’s not like I haven’t been arguing that point for some time now – conservatives and moderates, conservatives and Republicans, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and national defense conservatives all have something in common, despite their differences. The issue is not supposed to be about Rush versus Powell, or Newt versus Hoffman. The real issue is about current conservatism versus invasive socialism. A united front is needed in the face of a common enemy.

An aside implied in Dr. Zero’s appraisal, is the idea of fighting liberal emotional fire with conservative emotional fire. He says don't use pie charts to make your points. Damn it though, the pie charts prove so much!

I get his point though. Repeating the phrase "proven to fail" ad nauseum, could be just as effective as the liberals’ mantra-chanting of "Bush lied, people died". Although I wonder how many people that lie actually converted, as opposed to just solidified in beliefs of diehard liberals. There's no way to tell. “Proven to fail” has truth on its side too. Supposed solutions that have proven to fail time and again, have been evident both here and abroad.

“Proven to fail” sounds catchy. It doesn't even need a pie chart. But as a fiscal conservative, I'm going to keep the chart in my back pocket in case someone asks.

To be honest, that's the kind of convert I want, not a Marc Antony* following mob of mindless drones who would rather munch popcorn and be seduced by a good speech than ask serious questions of the speaker. As a conservative, that's how we are wired.

*Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral ...

But hey, that's just me. Rahm Emmanuel and Saul Alinsky get it, although they see those people as useful idiots who will vote with their emotions that can be easily manipulated. I'm a purist but I understand the need to get an emotional response from the listener some times. Perhaps these are such times.

Rush Limbaugh has often pointed out the flaws of feel-good-liberalisms and why it’s not a principle to be governed by. But he fails to move on to the next logical point in that line of thinking. Many people will always, only vote with their hearts and not their heads. Getting through to them is tough, and pie charts and logic make it harder, not easier. It’s a conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from Venus type problem. If you want to win over the unconvinced, you have to at least speak their language.

Let’s face it; the right of the blogosphere is full of wonks who can recite lines from a 1900 page bill. That fails to connect with most of the non-choir part of the right as much as the GOP party insiders who thrust Scozzafava upon NY23 in a smarter-than-thou fit-a-pique more attenuated to Democrat sensibilities than liberty-loving conservatives. And if we can’t convince the less attuned conservatives on a regular basis, how can we get moderates and nervous liberals to consider our side of the story?

That’s right – we’ve got to talk to their feelings. At least until we can start to get them asking the questions where we get to start showing our pie charts…

Pro-Life Lipstick Meets Pelosicare Pig

Nothing is perfect. No person is perfect. Pelosi's bill is not only imperfect, it is seriously flawed. Putting some lipstick on this pig of a bill doesn't make it pretty or perfect. It's still a pig. The lipstick comes in the form of a Stupak Amendment to provide some pro-life insurance to the bill in case it passed. That's like putting lipstick on the pig in case you have to kiss it. Unfortunately, without the lipstick, this pig wouldn't need kissing.

It's understandable that pro-life advocates want that insurance. Politics takes a back seat to defending life. I get that. But if ever there was an example of placing personal objectives above team goals this was it. By doing so the team of those against this bill suffered an unnecessary loss. The bill would have failed if 3 votes had changed. 3 votes out of 220 in favor of this money-sucking pig. On such a contentious vote, 3 votes could have been found without the protection of Stupak.

The real frustration is that the Stupak Amendment (which I tweeted on Twitter was a Trojan Horse), gave an out to many Blue Dog Democrats a way to vote for the bill with less risk of political repercussions in 2010. Sadly, I was right.
I haven't cross-tabbed the results but take a look at those Democrats who voted for Stupak and for Pelosicare. I bet there are more than three Representatives.

And it gets worse. There is no guarantee that the Amendment will even stay in the bill when it gets reconciled with the eventual Senate version. The lipstick might get wiped off the pig before you have to kiss it.

So what was the point besides standing on principle? The bill could have been defeated in it's entirety without this amendment. True you don't play politics with human life. But in the end the Stupak piece will be pulled out of the bill, which passed enabled by the Stupak vote. Whatever happened to united we stand, divided we fall?

This isn't about blame. This process is far from over. The NOW crowd is already rumbling over Stupak and is threatening Senators with political trouble if their version includes the same stipulation that federal funds may not be used for abortions. In this case ironically, two political wrongs might make a right.

There's a shot a redemption here for all conservatives, pro-life or otherwise. That is, provided teamwork is a guiding principal. Conservatives of all stripes need to remember that liberalism is unrelenting. Since FDR's time the ultimate example of scope creep has been on display. Government has never stopped growing. Social morality has consistently decayed. Freedom has regularly eroded. The march can be slowed, even stopped at times. It has never in any significant way, been reversed, even under Reagan. All we can offer in response is eternal vigilance. That, a true sense of team and a willingness to get a bit dirty in the effort.