Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Conservatism didn't lose, because conservatism was never up for election

I've been reading some of the post-election punditry, and even though I wasn't that surprised at Obama's win and did not support Romney personally, I can't help but be depressed at the usual spin.

Every time a Republican loses, conservatives, especially social conservatives, are told that it's our fault.  If we would just shut up about man-woman marriage, if we would just celebrate the sexual revolution and hold parades to shower the local deviants with free contraception, if we would sponsor a line of greeting cards with messages like "Congratulations on shredding that unwanted fetus!  I'm so happy that you got rid of it!" etc., we would see Republicans win the presidency again.  It's stupid, but it's ubiquitous stupidity.

Did conservatives lose out because voters in three leftist states redefined marriage to include same-sex pairings?  Frankly, it's surprising that in those cesspools of reeking degeneracy conservatives were able to put up any kind of a fight at all.  Did conservatives lose because in a sound-bite era somebody mouthed off about rape in a way that sounded insensitive?  No; exit polls indicated that voters chose the Democrat because they want more free government goodies.  They may not have said so in so many words, but that's what it amounted to, because the Democrat harpy got votes from pro-lifers, too; abortion's not as important, you see, as making other people pay for your stuff.

Did a conservative lose the presidential race?  No, because calling Mitt Romney a conservative is like calling two men or two women a "marriage;" you can say it all you want, but it's still patently ridiculous.  If Mitt Romney was ever the best or brightest hope of American conservatives, then American conservatism is dead, and might as well be laid to rest.  But Mitt Romney was not selling conservatism on the campaign trail; he was selling liberalism-lite, and on pretty much the same terms as his opponent.  To put it bluntly, we were not arguing about which man might be virtuous; we had already established that they are both willing to sell their virtue, and were only haggling over the price.  Only the price was hidden in plain sight in much the same way the price of a cell phone contract is; Americans chose what they thought was the "free" phone, and will be unpleasantly surprised when the $20 trillion price tag is added on a monthly basis to the bill.

Conservatism didn't lose last night, because conservatism wasn't even up for election this time around.  In an America where Uncle Sam is everybody's sugar-daddy and any discussion of the value of a traditional family of a mother and a father and their children is marred by cries of "Bigot!  Hater!" by those who think that a better model for America is the single mom who has children with men she's not committed enough to to marry, or the same-sex couples and their manufactured child they bought from a reproductive prostitute, or just about anything except the hateful model of mom and dad and their children, conservatism doesn't even make it on the ballot.

But I think that someday American conservatism will make a comeback.  It will happen a long time from now, when those of easy virtue have gotten all their free birth control and subsidized abortion and have thus failed to reproduce themselves, and America, like many European nations, replaces her native population with people from other countries who still have enough respect for personal responsibility to value faith, family, and hard work, and to seek to encourage those values at the highest levels.


The Sicilian Woman said...

Preach it, sister. I feel terrible for those of you with children who'll live among the filth to come.

I'd like to think there'll be a turnaround, but, if there is one, it won't happen until we hit rock bottom. Even then, I wonder if the poisonous mix of self-love, greed and arrogance will still taste sweet enough to the masses that they'll tighten their own nooses. And still blame the long-impotent, long-dead conservatives.

L. said...

I guess I'm one of those people you mean, "those of easy virtue." I will soon likely be a single mom by choice, when I refuse to follow my husband on his next job transfer again, which I suppose makes me a "hater" of the traditional family.

But since I am indeed passing my values onto my kids -- and any other kids I can influence -- I am doing my part to make sure liberal/progressive values don't die with me.

bearing said...


I am so sorry that you are having family troubles related to your husband's job. There are so many who are suffering right now. I am sure that the two of you have it within you to do what is right for your children -- may you see a path with clear eyes and open heart.

Rebecca in ID said...

And...I'll have to think about your post a little, but again I'm not surprised. I do think that Romney was stronger on economy than on anything else; however, I think this was the most strongly pro-life Republican ticket that has run in a long time. I do think that people voted for Romney precisely because of this; in other words I don't think there were a huge amount of conservatives that were refusing to vote for him because he wasn't conservative enough. So I think the split we saw in the voting was relatively true to the split in the population among values. I do think that the Latino vote however was skewed because of fear--Romney took a hard line (way too hard, I think) on immigration, and that was frightening, so other considerations may have been put aside. Anyway...your view is interesting to me, because for me, this ticket was so refreshing since everyone else we've been handed since the Reagan years; they actually had the guts to speak up, and they also seemed to have some understanding of what form of government we have and should attempt to preserve.

Rebecca in ID said...

that first sentence should read, "again I'm surprised."

L. said...

Thanks, Bearing!
I admit I am hyper-sensitive lately when people criticize single moms, because even though we technically won't be divorcing, I am effectively going to become a single parent for a few years, instead of keeping the family together.

doomweaver said...

You comments here and at Dreher's have been noticed at Little Green Footballs.

See comment 151

PersonalFailure said...

From your own post of November 6th:

No matter who wins this election, I will not get mad at God or think He has abandoned our nation.
No matter who wins this election, I will not get mad at my neighbor and call him evil.
No matter who wins this election, I will not call the candidate I opposed names or be hateful toward him. I will pray for him.
No matter who wins this election, I will not call the candidate I supported a hero or the savior of our country. I will pray for him.
No matter who wins this election, I will not forget that Christ is King.
No matter who wins this election, I will not forget the Bible's admonition that we should not put our trust in princes. (Psalm 146)
No matter who wins this election, I will remember that the salvation of my soul and the soul of my neighbor is worth more than a hundred years, or a hundred times a hundred years, of the presidency.
No matter who wins this election, I will not be tempted either to despair or to complacency.
No matter who wins this election, I will pray my usual daily prayers tomorrow.
No matter who wins this election, I will trust in Divine Providence in all things relating to my life and to the lives of my family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen.

Pretty sure you broke all ten in this one post. Good job!

Red Cardigan said...

Well, PF, I never said I was perfect. Still, I'm not mad at God, and I don't think He has abandoned this nation. And I'm fighting the temptation to be mad at my neighbors, or to notice more than usual what jerks they can be. Ahem.

Red Cardigan said...

Doomweaver, thanks for sending that. BTW, the poster in 151 is a commenter who used to post at Rod's. The poster is an MtF transsexual married to a woman. Since my belief is that he's still fundamentally male, I don't know why (s)he gets all mad at me about my gay "marriage" opinions, but in any case, that's the backstory of this particular commenter and our prior interactions FWIW.

Red Cardigan said...

Just in general, the LGF crowd is a stunning example of a total political cesspool, so being bashed in their comments section is sort of an honor. And hey, I'll take the blog hits...

L. said...

Comment on your post above this one: If Catholics - or anyone - are ever being forced to sign corporate diversity statements that deny their faith - or any statements - in order to keep their jobs, then Free Speech fanatics everywhere (like me) would raise an outcry.
I am pro-gay agenda, myself, as you know, but I know people opposed to same sex marriage for thoughtful, articulate reasons with which I don't happen to agree. The problem is that there are plenty of vocal anti-gay agenda people who ARE haters, and who hate the sinner MORE than the sin.

L. said...

Interesting -- some polls say Obama captured the Catholic vote, but not the white Catholics:

John Parker said...

I think Romney would've governed fairly conservatively in some ways (I couldn't see him defying the conservative base on obvious issues) and as a technocratic centrist in others, mainly the economy.

the problem isn't that Romney was "extreme," he obviously isn't. The problem is that the Obama campaign was able to _convince_ people that he was, partially by associating him with other Republicans who weren't prepared to answer the inevitable rape/abortion questions without putting their foot in their mouths. Paul Ryan has the same position on that as Akin and Mourdock, for example, but he's able to defend himself in an articulate way.

there's also of course this idea that reversing this recent HHS mandate apparently amounts to banning birth control, and I am disappointed that some people from my generation apparently bought into that BS...

if there's any silver lining, it's that the Democrats didn't change when Bush won reelection and they were able to come back. The GOP should keep this in mind and resist calls for them to "compromise" in order to make their party more electable, especially since it's coming from people who couldn't care less about anything related to conservatism

John Parker said...

i shouldn't say Ryan has the same position as Akin, i meant just Mourdock