Brad Aisa

Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's op ed in Boulder Weekly

20 posts in this topic

Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's op ed "Abortion and Abolition" appeared in the Oct 9 edition of The Boulder Weekly. For anyone familiar with Boulder, this weekly is surprisingly right-friendly, and regularly features reason and rights-friendly editorials and articles. The op ed was in opposition to our horrific Ammendment 48 here in Colorado that would define a "human being" as beginning at conception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's op ed "Abortion and Abolition" appeared in the Oct 9 edition of The Boulder Weekly. For anyone familiar with Boulder, this weekly is surprisingly right-friendly, and regularly features reason and rights-friendly editorials and articles. The op ed was in opposition to our horrific Ammendment 48 here in Colorado that would define a "human being" as beginning at conception.

Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's op ed "Abortion and Abolition" appeared in the Oct 9 edition of The Boulder Weekly. For anyone familiar with Boulder, this weekly is surprisingly right-friendly, and regularly features reason and rights-friendly editorials and articles. The op ed was in opposition to our horrific Ammendment 48 here in Colorado that would define a "human being" as beginning at conception.

Lin Zinser group has been doing a great job in terms of intellectual activism locally in Colorado and on the internet. My past disagreements with Diana's opinions or actions do not prevent me from acknowledging that Diana is a big component of that success and deserves credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ari Armstrong published the following in his blog. Does anyone agree that the religious right is defeated and that the association of the religious right with the Repbulicans was the cause of the Republican's defeat?

The Big Loser: The Religious Right

Liberty won another victory in that the faith-based politics of the religious right suffered defeat. I will repeat what I said on the CBS 4 webcast last night: Democrats in Colorado have not won their races; Republicans have lost theirs. (And if Democrats forget that, they will find their majority, both at the national and state level, short lived.) By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses.

-------------

This is the measure that I spent most of my time trying to defeat. Diana Hsieh and I wrote the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and I also wrote a lot about it on my other blog.

The timing of Amendment 48 could not have been worse for Republicans, for it kept in voters' minds the simple fact that Republicans have sold their souls to the religious right. The measure caused Schaffer especially a great deal of grief. And I'm glad of that, because it drew out this issue with finality.

However, while the measure was crushed according to the usual political calculus, the simple fact is that 27 percent of the state voted for the faith-based proposition that a fertilized egg is a person. The religious right is not going away. Its leaders do not care about immediate political success; they care about imposing God's alleged will on earth.

I find such one-issue arguments hard to accept. The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------

I find such one-issue arguments hard to accept. The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on.

Oh, and how could I forget, the abysmal failure of the Republicans to explain the economic problems in the country as the fault of the government and not the free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Armstrong published the following in his blog. Does anyone agree that the religious right is defeated and that the association of the religious right with the Republicans was the cause of the Republican's defeat?

I don't but I realize that is the "party line" for some -- though far from all -- Objectivists.

I find such one-issue arguments hard to accept.

So do I, especially since no facts or evidence have been presented to support that conclusion other that this is what motivated the writer to vote as he did.

The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on.

And the facts, including every single exit poll I have seen, do support the issues mentioned above as the main reasons why people did not vote for the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone agree that the religious right is defeated and that the association of the religious right with the Repbulicans was the cause of the Republican's defeat?

I certainly do not agree that the religious right is defeated, or even significantly weakened. They are roiling with betrayal and confusion and self-doubt, but they live for their vision of a Christian America, and can always count on a new batch of pragmatists to carry their standard and on the pragmatic left to give enough ground to restore some of their influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on.

And the facts, including every single exit poll I have seen, do support the issues mentioned above as the main reasons why people did not vote for the Republicans.

Mark Steyn made a good identification of what the conservatives need to do - and which Objectivists are already doing:

I congratulate Senator Obama on a remarkable and decisive victory. It was in many ways the final battle in a war the Republican Party didn’t even bother fighting — the “long march through the institutions.” While the Senator certainly enjoyed the patronage of the Chicago machine, he is not primarily a political figure: Whether “educators” like William Ayers or therapeutic pop-culture types like Oprah, his closest associations are beyond the world of electoral politics. He emerged rather from all the cultural turf the GOP largely abandoned during its 30-year winning streak at the ballot box, and his victory demonstrates the folly of assuming that folks will continue to pull the lever for guys with an R after their name every other November even as all the other institutions in society become de facto liberal one-party states.

Bill Bennett asked me on the air the other day why voters were so hot for this hope’n’change mush, and I suggested that it’s the dominant vernacular of the age. Go into almost any American grade-school and stroll the corridors: you’ll find the walls lined with Sharpie-bright supersized touchy-feely abstractions: “RESPECT,” “DREAM,” “TOGETHER,” “DIVERSITY.” By contrast, Mister Maverick talked of “reaching across the aisle” and ending “earmarks,” which may sound heroic in Washington but ring shriveled and reductive to anyone who’s not obsessed with legislative process. This dead language embodied the narrow sliver of turf on which he was fighting, while Obama was bestriding the broader cultural space. Republicans need to start their own long march back through all the institutions they ceded. Otherwise, the default mode of this society will be liberal, and what’s left of the Republican party will be reduced (as in other parts of the west) to begging the electorate for the occasional opportunity to prove it can run the liberal state just as well as liberals can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Armstrong published the following in his blog. Does anyone agree that the religious right is defeated and that the association of the religious right with the Republicans was the cause of the Republican's defeat?

I don't but I realize that is the "party line" for some -- though far from all -- Objectivists.

I find such one-issue arguments hard to accept.

So do I, especially since no facts or evidence have been presented to support that conclusion other that this is what motivated the writer to vote as he did.

The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on.

And the facts, including every single exit poll I have seen, do support the issues mentioned above as the main reasons why people did not vote for the Republicans.

But, do you mean to say that people do not want environmentalism or out-of-control spending? Seems like voting for Democrats is hardly the opposite direction. It's just further left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, do you mean to say that people do not want environmentalism or out-of-control spending?

Some do, but most don't.

In the past, Americans have elected Republicans thinking they would oppose big spending, produce more energy, protect property rights, bring prosperity, and win the War on Terrorism. Instead, got Democrats with a "R" behind their names. That's why they got mad and rejected the Republicans -- not because they were trying to avoid theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, do you mean to say that people do not want environmentalism or out-of-control spending?

Some do, but most don't.

In the past, Americans have elected Republicans thinking they would oppose big spending, produce more energy, protect property rights, bring prosperity, and win the War on Terrorism. Instead, got Democrats with a "R" behind their names. That's why they got mad and rejected the Republicans -- not because they were trying to avoid theocracy.

But do you think that those who felt this way voted for Democrats instead of for Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the past, Americans have elected Republicans thinking they would oppose big spending, produce more energy, protect property rights, bring prosperity, and win the War on Terrorism. Instead, got Democrats with a "R" behind their names. That's why they got mad and rejected the Republicans -- not because they were trying to avoid theocracy.

But do you think that those who felt this way voted for Democrats instead of for Republicans?

Based on exit poll data and what I've heard on talk radio, I think that disgust with the way Republicans handled the above led many Republicans and uncommitted voters to choose Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the past, Americans have elected Republicans thinking they would oppose big spending, produce more energy, protect property rights, bring prosperity, and win the War on Terrorism. Instead, got Democrats with a "R" behind their names. That's why they got mad and rejected the Republicans -- not because they were trying to avoid theocracy.

But do you think that those who felt this way voted for Democrats instead of for Republicans?

Based on exit poll data and what I've heard on talk radio, I think that disgust with the way Republicans handled the above led many Republicans and uncommitted voters to choose Obama.

Why? I assume that such people would have at least a rationalization for this. (I can't think of a reason.) It's sort of like, "Well, I don't want the flu, so I'll take an injection of the Ebola virus please."

And I think this is an illuminating analogy if what 'Wiki Answers' says about these two viruses is true. According to them, and to the Department of Energy (can't imagine exactly why this is their department, but found info there) the flu in general, with its constant mutations and occasional deadly strains, has been responsible for far more deaths than the Ebola virus. The Ebola virus is far more rare. However, it kills more certainly (90% death rate), immediately (within 48 hours), and hideously (liquefies the vital organs). Many individuals have a good chance of surviving a flu epidemic, but an infection with the Ebola virus means almost certain (and terrifying) death, and sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------------------------

Why? I assume that such people would have at least a rationalization for this. (I can't think of a reason.) It's sort of like, "Well, I don't want the flu, so I'll take an injection of the Ebola virus please."

-------------

If I can offer my opinion on this, one reason is that there are many Republicans who vote on one issue which they regard as the most important reason to vote for a candidate. We have seen Objectivists advocate voting for Democrats because of the religious right. Many Republicans won't support a Republican candidate if they waiver on abortion issues, gun rights issues, free speech issues, lower taxes ("read my lips"), smaller government, immigration issues, etc. Put this all together with a Party and a candidate (McCain) that has abandoned its core conservative principles (support of freedom and private property), and you've got a recipe for disaster.

It is not that people want ebola rather than the flu, it is that they will not voluntarily stand next to a person who has a known case of the flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on exit poll data and what I've heard on talk radio, I think that disgust with the way Republicans handled the above led many Republicans and uncommitted voters to choose Obama.

Why? I assume that such people would have at least a rationalization for this. (I can't think of a reason.) It's sort of like, "Well, I don't want the flu, so I'll take an injection of the Ebola virus please."

The problem is that people don't know what we know. They don't realize that Obama is Ebola. They're just miserable with the flu and figure that anything else would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------

Obama is Ebola.

---------

Hmmm. Sounds like the beginning of a good poem. Or is that an axiom? ^_^

There are many who do know the significant problem that Obama represents. If you've listened to Limbaugh, he's pretty clear about it. The problem is that the number of people who would make a difference in the election don't know (or care) about Obama's intellectual poison. Just look at the drop in the number of Hispanics who voted for McCain (compared to Bush 4 years ago) because of the Republican's perceived anti-immigrant attitudes and policies. It was only a couple of counties in Florida and Virginia that turned the tide in those states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, do you mean to say that people do not want environmentalism or out-of-control spending?

Some do, but most don't.

In the past, Americans have elected Republicans thinking they would oppose big spending, produce more energy, protect property rights, bring prosperity, and win the War on Terrorism. Instead, got Democrats with a "R" behind their names. That's why they got mad and rejected the Republicans -- not because they were trying to avoid theocracy.

I think with the rejection of Huckabee and Mitt Romney in the republican primaries they were trying to get rid of theocracy. McCain is more like a democrat than a republican, and is certainly not a proponent of free market. So, from the stand point of the republican primaries we have the message that we don't want religion or we don't believe free markets work well. Otherwise, I'm not sure why McCain won the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think with the rejection of Huckabee and Mitt Romney in the republican primaries they were trying to get rid of theocracy. McCain is more like a democrat than a republican, and is certainly not a proponent of free market. So, from the stand point of the republican primaries we have the message that we don't want religion or we don't believe free markets work well. Otherwise, I'm not sure why McCain won the nomination.

McCain's primary opponents were opposed by each other and opposed 100% by the mainstream media. They knocked each other out. McCain, who had the full support of the MSM, was the last man standing and he won the nomination by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have split off posts not directly relevant to the original topic into a separate topic titled "Bill Bucko, Diana Hsieh, and ARI" in the Relationships forum (link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites