Separate but equal

On Christian comment threads I sometimes see softheaded people propose a simple solution to the transgender controversy over restrooms: have a separate restroom for transgenders. A single-occupant restroom with a lock. Problem solved!

I'd like to discuss the problem with that "solution". Some Christians are caught off-guard by this debate because it's so ridiculous to begin with.

i) At best, that solution would only work for new construction. Existing buildings already have space and plumbing allocated for restrooms. So the solution would require retrofitting old buildings with an extra restroom. 

I assume people who propose this "solution" aren't in businessmen or structural engineers, because they've clearly given no thought to the expense or feasibility of their proposal. It's one of those unfunded mandates dear to people who delegate implementation to someone else. 

Take a skyscraper. The cumulative weight must be carefully distributed. The structural loads and stresses are enormous. You can't just knock out a weight-bearing wall to make room for a new restroom. Likewise, the floor of one story is the ceiling of another. Consider what would be involved adding new plumbing for an additional restroom (or restrooms) on each floor. 

ii) Another problem is enforcement: what's to keep cisgendered men and women from using the transgender restroom? 

iii) But perhaps the biggest problem is that, from what I've read, trans activists reject separate but equal facilities in principle. They find that exclusionary. It singles them out as abnormal. So this is a "solution" by cisgendered people who haven't been listening to trans activists. 

iv) Another problem is the notion that there's a one-size-fits-all restroom (or locker room) for the transgendered. But the taxonomy is much more varied:

• Cis men (i.e. normal men)

• Cis woman (i.e. normal women)

• Trans men (i.e. biological females who self-identify as male) 

• Trans women (i.e. biological males who self-identify as female)

Trans men and trans women further subdivide into:

• Trans men and trans women who've undergone body modification (i.e. hormone therapy, sex-change operation) 

• Trans men and trans women who haven't undergone body modification

In addition to:

• Pangender

• Agender

Now, since the whole perceived need to accommodate the transgendered is because they find it unbearable to use restrooms and locker rooms that match their biological sex, won't many of them find it unbearable to share the same restrooms and locker rooms with the cisgendered? Won't they still feel out of place?

Put another way, you'd expect trans men to feel at ease around other trans men rather than cis men. Trans women to feel at ease around other trans women rather than cis women. Body modified trans men to feel at ease around other body modified trans men. And so on. Isn't that the logic of their position? Each gender variation is a unique kind. Not equivalent to another kind. 

To take one example, where does Bruce Jenner belong? He's a surgical hermaphrodite. Male genitalia and breast implants. He will stick out whether you put him in a cisgender men's locker room or cisgender women's locker room. 

Suppose he undergoes a penectomy. He still won't look like a normal woman. He has a male body plan. A male chassis. 

And this isn't like someone with a birth defect. No. This is self-mutilation. 

So, to accommodate all the subdivisions, don't we need to build multi-occupant restrooms and locker rooms which each subgroup will share with members of the same subgroup? That's about eight different multi-occupant restrooms and locker rooms to accommodate all concerned parties. 

v) What about otherkin? Should humans who self-identify as animals be free to defecate and urinate outside, in public spaces? Of course, that will create public sanitation issues.

vi) The deeper issue is that transgender ideology represents a direct attack on the whole "cisnormative/heteronormative" binaries. It's a frontal assault on the natural order. Transgender activists don't believe biological sex represent God's design for human nature. They don't think nature is normative. 

The distinction and interplay of manhood and womanhood are central to human society. Deny that and anarchy ensues. 

ivi) Finally, transgender activists will demand accommodations in sports. What happens when transgender girls and women (i.e.. biological boys and men who self-identify as female) invade women's sports? The biological males will dominate women's sports. Squeeze out the females. Conversely, when transgender boys and men elbow their way onto male teams, they will negatively impact performance. Same thing with military readiness and unit cohesion. 

All glory be to Christ

Should nothing of our efforts stand, no legacy survive
Unless the Lord does raise the house, in vain its builders strive
To you who boast tomorrow’s gain, tell me what is your life
A mist that vanishes at dawn, all glory be to Christ!

All glory be to Christ our king! All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing, all glory be to Christ!

His will be done, his kingdom come, on earth as is above
Who is Himself our daily bread, praise Him the Lord of love
Let living water satisfy the thirsty without price
We’ll take a cup of kindness yet, all glory be to Christ!

All glory be to Christ our king! All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing, all glory be to Christ!

When on the day the great I Am, the faithful and the true
The Lamb who was for sinners slain, is making all things new.
Behold our God shall live with us and be our steadfast light
And we shall ere his people be, all glory be to Christ!

All glory be to Christ our king! All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing, all glory be to Christ!

This life I live

This life I live is not my own
For my Redeemer paid the price
He took it to be his alone
To be his treasure and his prize
The things of earth I leave behind
To live in worship of my King
His is the right to rule my life
Mine is the joy to live for him

I died to sin upon the cross
I'm bound to Jesus in his death
The old is gone and now I must
Rely on him for every breath
With every footstep that I tread
What mysteries he has in store
I cannot know what lies ahead
But know that he has gone before

There is a voice that pierced the grave
A power that rolled the stone away
A sound of life, I know I'm saved
The voice of God has called my name
So I will rise, and in the air
Behold the glory of the King
I will not fear to meet him there
I know my life is hid with him

Sciurophobia

There are biological men who claim to be psychologically female, and biological women who claim to be psychologically male. Of course, they have no direct frame of reference. They can't compare themselves to normal men and women, so they don't know what it's actually like to be psychologically male or female, in contrast to their biological sex. 

I seriously doubt that most folks who claim to be transgender actually experience a mismatch between their sexual psychology and their sexual physiology. But let's entertain the possibility that some people genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria. 

Compare that to phobias. There are people who really do suffer from phobias. Take acrophobia. There are situations in which that can be nerve-wracking. Driving across a high bridge, or high freeway span, or driving down a winding road with a sheer drop-off. Things like that. 

But while we should be sympathetic to people who suffer from acrophobia, it's completely unrealistic to think we're obligated redesign road and bridges, or reshape the landscape, to accommodate acrophobes. 

By the same token, acrophobia would presumably disqualify you from becoming a paratrooper or fighter pilot. In a sense, that's unfair. But we can't reasonably drop the requirement that paratroopers jump out of airplanes or that fighter pilots have daredevil nerves. 

Likewise, some people suffer from hemophobia. That will certainly limit their options in the medical profession. It may not be fair, but you can't accommodate a surgeon who's afraid of blood. 

Or take sciurophobia. Apparently, some people are actually scared of squirrels. But does that mean we should create squirrel-proof public parks? Design squirrel-free safe spaces? 

Although phobias may be irrepressible, there are situations in which you just have to override your feelings and do what's necessary. Push through the fear. 

It's like soldiers who may be terrified of battle. That's understandable. But they have to steel themselves and do what's required of them, despite their fear. 

The enemy within

Now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, it's no longer a choice between Trump and his primary opponents, but Hillary and Trump. 

(I mean "choice" in terms of which one will be elected. Obviously, there are other folks you can vote for, or not vote at all.)

There are voters who hate Trump, but will vote for him because they think Hillary is worse. That's not my own position, but I don't blame them. The Trumpkins have destroyed all the good options.

But I'd like to briefly discuss the consequences of a Trump presidency, were he elected. I'm probing the way in which the choice is framed. Is Trump better than Hillary?

We have two major parties in this country. By that I mean, only two parties are large enough to be competitive at a state and national level. There are other parties, but they are rarely completive, even at the state and local level. I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just the way it is.

The Democrat party is the liberal party, and it keeps moving to the left. The GOP is the opposition party. 

A basic problem with a Trump presidency is that he'd co-opt the GOP. He'd have the potential to transform the party–for the worse. In that event, you'd no longer have an opposition party to resist the liberal establishment. You'd wind up with two liberal national parties. Yes, there'd be conservative splinter groups, but these would be ineffectual. 

There's a particular kind of damage that someone inside an organization can do that outsiders can't. A classic example is Kim Philby, head of counterespionage operations for MI-6. As a double agent (a KJB recruit), he was in a position to do far more harm to British intelligence than an outsider could. 

Indeed, some critics have suggested that Trump is a Democrat plant. But even if that's not the case, he's the functional equivalent of a double agent. He's a lifelong Democrat with Manhattan values.  

If we turn over the house keys to Trump, will we have a house to come back to four years later, or will we be locked out? Evicted?  

Olympic Flip-Flopper

Nobody's better at flip-flopping than I am. I have the best flips. The best flops. The best. Believe me. I promise. It's going to be terrific.

American Satyricon

New York Times

March 17, 2017

Just two months after he was sworn in, Pres. Trump married his fourth trophy wife, Caitlyn Jenner-Trump. The ceremony was held at First Baptist Dallas. Pastor Jeffress made the sanctuary available for this august occasion. Rev. Mike Huckabee officiated the wedding. Sean Hannity was Trump's Best man. Strippers from the Trump Taj Mahal supplied the bridesmaids. Gov. Christie stood behind the First Ladyish to carry his/her bridal train. 

Prior to the event, Jerry Falwell hosted a Bacchanalian stag party at Liberty U, where he and Trump shared a hot tub filled with Château Lafite. 

According to TMZ, which acquired a leaked copy of their prenup, ex-wife Melania Trump received an exorbitant severance package in exchange for keeping mum about the Donald's small hands and other appendages. 

The Supremes

I've seen some critics of the GOP say the party in power makes no difference to Supreme Court rulings. But that's a gross oversimplification. 

For instance, they point out that Justice Kennedy was nominated by a Republican president. But that overlooks two salient facts:

i) Reagan originally nominated Bork. That was his first pick.

ii) At the time, Democrats controlled the Senate. 

If Democrats control the Senate, then a Republican president, no matter how conservative, can't push through a nominee that Democrats oppose. 

There's also the mathematical fallacy–as if it came down to one vote: Kennedy's. But the four justices who opposed homosexual marriage were Republican nominees, while four of the five justices who supported homosexual marriage were Democrat nominees. It took five votes, four of which were supplied by Democrat nominees. 

Therefore, it's counterproductive to use that as an example of how the party in power makes no difference to how cases are decided. The reality is precisely the opposite.  

The four Democrat nominees were nominated by Bill Clinton and Obama respectively. If their Republican rivals had won instead, that would be four additional Republican nominees. Even if two of them turned out to be closet liberals, you'd still have a working conservative majority. 

Likewise, I've seen some critics single out Chief Justice Roberts, who was nominated by a Republican, because he voted for Obamacare. Yes, Roberts disgraced himself on that issue. But what makes that the litmus test? Roberts voted against homosexual marriage. Why not make that the litmus test? Imagine how much worse the court would have been had Kerry or Gore been president. 

Also, what about good nominees like Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, et.? Why don't Republican presidents get credit for them? And it's not as if presidents have a crystal ball. 

Democrats, Republicans, and conservatives

Has the GOP strayed from its conservative roots? Certainly the Trump candidacy represents an abandonment of conservative principles. But even before then you've had critics who felt the party had lost its way.

A lot depends on your frame of reference. For instance, when I was born, Ike was president. Here's some of what the GOP platform said when he ran for reelection:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people. 

We support this and his [Eisenhower's] further offer of United States participation in an international fund for economic development financed from the savings brought by true disarmament. 

Government must have a heart as well as a head. 

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. 

Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees. 

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable. 

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years. 

We initiated the first flood insurance program in history under Government sponsorship in cooperation with private enterprise. 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

Does that sound stereotypically conservative to you? Isn't that something you'd expect to find in a Democrat party platform?  

In fairness, the platform also contains more conservative initiatives. And while we're on the subject, here's what it says about civil rights:

The Republican Party points to an impressive record of accomplishment in the field of civil rights and commits itself anew to advancing the rights of all our people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin. 

The many Negroes who have been appointed to high public positions have played a significant part in the progress of this Administration. 

Segregation has been ended in the District of Columbia Government and in the District public facilities including public schools, restaurants, theaters and playgrounds. The Eisenhower Administration has eliminated discrimination in all federal employment. 

Great progress has been made in eliminating employment discrimination on the part of those who do business with the Federal Government and secure Federal contracts. This Administration has impartially enforced Federal civil rights statutes, and we pledge that we will continue to do so. We support the enactment of the civil rights program already presented by the President to the Second Session of the 84th Congress. 

The regulatory agencies under this Administration have moved vigorously to end discrimination in interstate commerce. Segregation in the active Armed Forces of the United States has been ended. For the first time in our history there is no segregation in veterans' hospitals and among civilians on naval bases.

That was act a time when Southern Democrats were staunch segregationists. 

When I was a kid, bigwig Republicans included Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller. These were social liberals. Likewise, Nixon was a proponent of mandatory employer-based health insurance. 

The GOP became more conservative over time. Why? At least two reasons:

i) The GOP moved into the Bible belt. It supplanted the Democrat party in the South.

ii) As the Democrat party embraced abortion, feminism, gay rights, &c., the GOP became the haven of social conservatives. 

Republicans like Arlen Specter were throwbacks to a more socially liberal party. 

That's the past. What about recent history? Bush 43 opposed gays in the military. Obama, with Democrat supermajorities in Congress, swept it aside. 

Obamacare passed on a party line vote, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing it. 

What about the present situation? In North Carolina, a Republican governor spearheaded a law to ban unisex bathrooms. It passed by a party line vote in the NC senate. The Obama administration is now threatening NC. Conversely, Democrat NYC mayor Blasio signed a bill mandating unisex bathroom and locker room access. 

Likewise, in Mississippi, a Republican governor just signed into law a religious liberty bill. This passed by a party line vote.

The Democrat and Republican parties are not interchangeable. For another comparison and contrast: 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435078/republicans-didnt-cave-obama

God Has Spoken in His Son

Peter T. O'Brien has published God Has Spoken in His Son: a biblical theology of Hebrews. This is a complement to his splendid commentary on Hebrews. 

Trump pundits

In a painful irony, Trump's enablers included a gallery of erstwhile rightwing pundits–who portray themselves as the standard bearers of conservative ideological purity, viz. Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, Keith Burgess-Jackson, Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, Jerry Fallwell, Jr., Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Robert Jeffress, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan, Sarah Palin, Ben Shapiro. They were men and women of stalwart principle–unlike those soulless RINOs in the Republican establishment. 

Some of them continue to support him. Others panicked and began to attack him, but by then it was too little too late. It's very revealing to see the amount of dry rot in conservative punditry which Trump unwittingly exposed. Most of them proved to be just as compromising as rudderless Republicans in the GOP "establishment". The Trump phenomenon has been a clarifying moment for the conservative commentariat. Let's run through a few of these:

i) Bennett is one of the more literate conservatives. He's a moralist. Writes lots of hortatory books. Yet he lacks the moral discernment to see Trump for what he is.

ii) I have to assume Gingrich is backing Trump because Gingrich wants to be back in the loop. A presidential advisor. A powerbroker. 

iii) I suspect pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh were corrupted by their own success. They now move in the same socially elite circles that Trump was born into.

iv) Coulter has made a career of moral posturing. The question was how much was moral and how much was posturing. Well, we now see it was posturing all the way through. A social butterfly in a socially conservative cocoon. 

v) Ingraham has a homosexual brother. That probably dilutes her commitment to social conservatism. 

vi) We see a number of erstwhile conservative women supporting Trump. It's no secret that there's a type of woman who's drawn to men who project wealthy, status, and power. Both Coulter and Ingraham have really bad taste in boyfriends–so it's not surprising that they fell for Trump. 

vii) With Huckabee, there's always been a tug of war between Huckabee the social conservative and Huckabee the social climber. He used to be an eloquent spokesman for social conservativism, but that had to compete with his worldly ambitions. Like a man with multiple-personality disorder, the two Huckabees would surface at different times. It wasn't clear which one was dominant, but the social climber finally strangled the social conservative. 

viii) With Ben Shapiro, I think he prides himself as the disinterested referee who calls 'em  as he sees 'em. He won't allow pragmatic considerations to blur his ideological acuity.

But that was in tension with the fact that Shapiro has a profound personal investment in who wins the culture wars. Who wins the nomination. Who wins in November. Who sits on the high court. Those two sides of Shapiro weren't properly integrated, which accounts for his shortsightedness. 

In addition, both he and Levin like Trump's pugnaciousness. But that betrayed them into giving him the soft-glove treatment early on. 

ix) Pat Buchanan went off the deep end years ago. Indeed, he was always unstable. 

Where do we go from here?

Now that Trump is the presumptive conservative nominee, what should conservatives do? In the short term, this story doesn't have a happy ending. We're out of good options for the time being. 

1. I'm no expert on the nuts and bolts of the convention. Technically, it may be necessary for Trump to have more than 1237 delegates to win on the first ballot. That's because, as I understand, not all the delegates are bound delegates. In theory, some could bolt. So he might need some extra delegates as a margin for error. 

That said, it seems like Trump's nomination is a foregone conclusion. Theoretically, the RNC could change the rules to deny him the nomination, but surely that's not going to happen, even if it should.

2. Assuming he's the nominee, what's the next step for conservatives? Some conservatives believe that given a choice, we should support Trump over Hillary. I disagree, but there are reasonable arguments for that position. We're in a very tough situation.

3. Others don't think Trump is better than Hillary. Or they don't think the reasons for supporting Trump withstand scrutiny. Take three examples:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5474/5-arguments-voting-trump-and-why-they-fail-ben-shapiro

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433405/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-equally-terrible-conservatives

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-one-gleam-of-silver-lining.html

4. That brings us to the NeverTrump position. But that, by itself, is not a plan of action. Some conservatives think we should actively oppose Trump in the general election. Run a third-party candidate. 

Here we need to distinguish between not supporting Trump in the general election, and opposing Trump in the general election. I think it's a mistake to actively oppose him in the general election. 

It's one thing not to help Trump win. It's quite another to positively help Hillary win by siphoning votes away from Trump. I don't think conservatives should help either one. 

At one level, I think conservatives should get out of the way and let Trump and Hillary duke it out. That way, if Trump loses, the Trumpkins can't blame it on conservatives who sabotaged their candidate. At this point, we need to let it play out so that Trumpkins will find out the hard way how wrong they were. Don't interfere with the downfall of their candidate. Let them see for themselves the dire predictions come true. They need to learn a hard lesson. They need their own idol to disillusion them. Watch him underperform. 

That wasn't the case in the primaries, but we've passed the final exit on the freeway. 

5. That doesn't mean there's nothing left for conservatives to do:

i) We should educate the American public on conservative ideology. Explain what it is. Explain why it matters.

ii) We should explain what's wrong with Hillary's positions. We should call attention to her scandals. 

iii) To the extent that Trump has any stable, detailed policies, we should explain what's wrong with those.

And not just during the campaign, but after the election–whoever wins. 

6. Liberal ideology contains the seeds of its own destruction. For instance, if gov't officials aggressively promote transgender policies regarding restrooms, locker rooms, intramural sports, and professional sports, that has the potential to antagonize and mobilize tens of millions of voters, many of whom reflexively vote Democrat. 

David French has additional suggestions:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434952/donald-trump-nomination-conservatives-must-react-how

7. The Trump nomination doesn't represent the repudiation of conservative principles. It's not as they were tried and failed. No, they were never put to the test. 

Bart's groupies

(Posted on behalf of Steve.)

After I reviewed the debate between Bart Ehrman and Tim McGrew on YouTube, I took a look at some of the comments. Village atheists swarmed the comment thread, so I interacted with some of them [here and here]. Their lack of rudimentary reasoning skills is something to behold. Here are some of my comments:

New: a “correct interpretation” of the papal “interpretation” of the synod, “Amoris Lætitia”

Roman apologists used to boast to us that a papal interpretation was necessary to provide “a principled means of distinguishing ‘the deposit of faith’ from that which is ‘mere human opinion’”.

Now, thanks to “Pope Francis”, that hermeneutic has been turned on its head, as Roman Catholics at all levels need an “interpretation” of the papal “interpretation”.

Instructions For Not Losing the Way in the Labyrinth of “Amoris Lætitia”:

“One month after the publication of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” it is ever more evident that in interpreting and applying it there is growing “uncertainty and confusion, from the bishops' conferences to the small parishes in the middle of nowhere,” in the forceful criticism of the eminent German philosopher Robert Spaemann, a peer and longstanding friend of Joseph Ratzinger.”

Trump's constituency

We can thank Roman Catholics and white supremacists for Trump's ascendency:

Donald Trump swept the Republican primaries in the Northeast Corridor in large part due to the turnout of angry blue-collar Catholics. He may do the same in Indiana today. 

Trump’s biggest victory was in New York – which is 44 percent blue-collar – where he racked up an astonishing 61 percent of votes cast and carried all sixty-two counties. On Long Island where a large majority of GOP voters are Catholic, Trump received an astonishing 70 percent…In record-breaking numbers, they have come out to support the person who appeals to their gut, not to their mind – Donald Trump. 

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/05/03/angry-blue-collar-catholics/

Diluting liberalism

Conservatives are understandably frustrated by how Republican moderates in the GOP, as well as Democrats in government, dilute the conservative agenda. There is, though, another way of looking at the same issue. We can flip it around. The presence of conservatives in the GOP, as well as conservatives in government, dilutes the liberal agenda. Although I much prefer a 100° proof conservative agenda, we shouldn't underestimate the value of watering down the liberal agenda. 

Why I'm not Voting for Either Hillary This Election

Note: One of the things I like about Triablogue is that we have a pretty diverse view on many topics. While there is general agreement on many things, this is one where there is quite a bit of variance even amongst us. I only speak for myself in this post.

---

So this election has boiled down to a choice between the male version of Hillary Clinton and the female version of Hillary Clinton. As a Conservative, I am now doing my part to try to convince as many people as possible to vote for neither of them.

It’s been somewhat heartening seeing how many of my Facebook friends have already said they won’t vote for Trump. But unfortunately, there have still been dozens of posts I’ve seen from people saying, “Whelp, now that it’s down to Trump verse Clinton, I gotta hold my nose and vote for Trump.”

Let me try to persuade you that this is the absolute worst decision you can make as a Conservative.

Right now, the Republican Party consists of a coalition between various factions. Without giving any percentages (because I don’t know them), the party has social conservatives, social moderates, and even a few social liberals. I used to think that conservatives were a large proportion, even the majority, of Republicans, but I no longer think that is the case. Instead, we currently are just a fairly large minority.

Now, Republicans do not have enough moderates to win on their own in a general election. They need to establish coalitions to get enough votes. The problem is, for decades now—at least since I’ve been conscious of politics, and probably well before that—Conservatives have voted for Republicans no matter what. Republicans know they have the Conservative vote locked up.

So think of this logically, from the point of view of someone like, say, Karl Rove where your only desire is for Republicans to win, not for any particular policy. If you know that Conservatives will vote with the moderates no matter what, because they cannot abide the Democrat winning, then will you spend resources or political capital on Conservative issues? No. What need do you have to do that? You’ve already got them voting for you. Instead, what will you do? You’ll give favors and spend resources and use your political capital to try to convince the liberals to join the moderates too. And that means that you move the party leftward to make it more palatable for the liberals. Conservatives won’t like it, but they will vote Republican anyway. You lose nothing by moving left, but you gain liberal votes.

So how does this cash out? It means that as long as the Republicans know they can take the Conservative vote for granted, they will continue to give us candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney…and yes, even Donald Trump (who is the embodiment of the establishment regardless of what anyone claims).

Conservatives, if you vote for Donald Trump in this election then the Republican Party knows it can run the most liberal candidates and you will vote for them anyway. You will never again see a Conservative candidate in the Republican Party. The party will continue its leftward race.

Conservatives need to realize there are two things that must remain true in order for them to get their agenda into the public sphere. If either of these goes, Conservatism no longer has a voice.

1) Republicans must need Conservatives to vote with them to win elections. So far, this is true. If Conservatives do not vote with the Republican moderates, there are not enough Republican liberals and Democrat poached voters to make up the difference. But more importantly:

2) Conservatives need to show they will not vote for Republicans if Republicans ignore the Conservative agenda. And at this point, Conservatives fail. Conservatives are needed, but Republicans do not need to cater to Conservatives because Conservatives are obedient even when they are being abused.

Here’s the bottom line. If you want Conservativism to remain viable, then this election is the time to not vote for either Hillary. If you vote for Trump, then the party moves further to the left and at some point the party will gain enough members from the liberal side to counter-balance any support they would have gotten from Conservatives, and at that moment even the number (1) point that I mentioned above no longer applies for Conservatives.

But don’t just take my word for it. Consider the words of Ace of Spades, a social moderate/liberal who has until now been supporting social conservativism because he believed it was necessary to win elections. He’s been one of my favorite political commentators, despite being an atheist. Well, here’s what he’s seen:

…I don't think I'm going to be adapting my views to the socially-conservative mainstream any longer, because I'm not sure these views are actually the Republican mainstream any longer. I knew social conservatism wasn't quite as believed as was claimed; I knew many politicians claimed to be pro-life who were in fact pro-choice, and I knew many of the Beltway class of advisers, think-tank workers, etc. were pro-choice, or more pro-choice than the GOP was as a formal matter. They were certainly more pro-gay (if not always actually pro-gay-marriage).

But the fact that a clear social liberal, who practically no one believes is "pro-life" or even pro-gun, is the runaway favorite for the GOP nomination is a fact with major implications for the party going forward. If Trump's liberalism can be accepted, why can't the liberalism of Giuliani (or a Giuliani type to be named later) be accepted?

I had thought a whole bunch of things were non-negotiable demand points from an important part of the coalition.

Now it seems they either are plenty negotiable, or that part of the coalition isn't as important as I thought.

And again:

Pro-life Trump supporters are making several points in the comments. Let me respond to them, or my paraphrase of them.

"There are more important things to worry about at the moment, like protecting the integrity of the nation," is the general claim.

Understood -- and I agree. Pro-lifers are being, they say, tactical here, and reasonable about what can and cannot be done.

Here's the problem with that: If you want to maximize your leverage in political negotiations, you really have to establish you're unreasonable on the issue, and will not compromise -- if your demands are not met, you'll walk.

So yes, it's great to see pro-lifers are willing to compromise on this. Sure, it demonstrates they are flexible, adaptable, and willing to make tactical compromises for the greater good.

But now we know that going forward -- and you don't just get to say "Our flexible position only applies in 2016, and only to Trump." No, it applies going forward, generally.

We now know that this is not the deal-breaker some of us thought it was. (All emphasis original.)

Social Conservatives need to be unreasonable, we need to be uncompromising, we need to be unbending. We need to be willing to let Republicans lose elections when they don’t do what we want them to do.

It is myopic to focus on Hillary Clinton and say, “We cannot let her win” when the alternative is to destroy any chance the Conservative movement has to pass any policy. A Hillary win won’t destroy Conservativism, but Conservatives voting en mass for Trump most assuredly will.

Trump vs. Hillary

Islam today

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/islam-today/

Between the Devil and the deep blue sea

As I said to a friend late March, after the Rubio campaign cratered, it was hard for me to maintain interest in the race. At that point it would probably come down to choosing the best way to lose. Like being offered a choice of how to be executed: would you prefer death by hanging or firing squad? 

Well, here we are! 

The best argument for supporting Trump is the devil you know v. the devil you don't. Hillary is the devil you know. Trump might be as bad. Hard to see how he could be worse. He might be better.

However, one problem with that argument is that it's too atomized. Even if Trump considered in isolation is better than Hillary (debatable in itself), a President is the titular head of the party, and face of the party. If that's Trump, it will drag down the whole GOP. Discredit the Republican brand.

Mind you, there are people who support Trump precisely because they wish to destroy the GOP. However, Trump may damage the GOP either way. If he loses to Hillary, which is likely, his loss may well have a chain reaction on downticket races. That means, not only will Hillary be elected, but the opposition party will be swept out of power. There will be nothing left to block the liberal agenda. 

Speaking for myself, I've already indicated that I find voting for Trump too self-degrading. I will let the chips fall where they may.