Insanity

The Sensible Conservative is taking a break from the insanity of the world.  He'll be back in a week or so.

The Face of Evil

What does it look like?  After the Boston terror attack – and the death of one suspect and the capture of the other, acquaintances and friends of the perpetrators commented, almost uniformly, that they were shocked by acts that seemed so out of character.  “They were all-American kids,” some remarked.

It’s a natural feeling, it seems, to expect the evil-doer to act the part beforehand, to show his devil’s horns.  But of course, that’s usually wishful thinking.  Should evil-doers alert us ahead of time to what they have in store?

Yet it is true that sometimes they do.  Still, we ignore warnings.  We can’t believe that someone “not like that” could act like that.

The face of evil plainly lies beneath the surface.  It is found in the heart and soul.  We learn of its presence by the deed.  And then we appreciate that we really never did know this person’s face of evil.

Are Sound Bites the Key to Victory?

During the recent campaign, President Obama talked repeatedly about his desire for “fair and balanced” budget proposals and that the top two percent should pay their “fair share” of federal taxes. 

Republicans responded by noting that the Administration wanted, in actuality, more spending with little, if any, tax-cutting.  And that by paying far more than their pro-rata portion of income tax revenue, the rich were already paying at least their fair share.

Voters weren’t impressed.  “Fair and balanced” sounded right.  Further, few Americans are in the top 2% and are not sympathetic to the perceived plight of those who are.

The Republicans made a big mistake in not devising effective counter-sound bites.  Of course, Speaker Boehner reminded voters that all tax payers deserved a tax break.  Yet that put the GOP in the position of defending the top 2%.  That was not smart politics. 

It would be accurate to observe – as was done repeatedly – that the Obama campaign was demagogic and fomenting class resentment. 

But to condemn demagoguery is not the same as neutralizing it.  And to call a sound bite inaccurate does not mean that listeners will disregard it.

The simple fact is that the public at large focuses little on political matters and cares even less about them.

A thumb nail sketch, or catch phrase, which resonates as compatible with one’s mind-set is good for most and will not be examined further.

Richard Luntz, a long time GOP pollster and frequent guest on Fox News, recently made the point that the effective phraseology employed by Democrats was hardly attributable to dumb luck.  The slogans had been focus group-tested and mandated as campaign talking points. 

The Conservative Response to Same-Sex “Marriage”

A conservative is philosophically skeptical of calls for change in historical practices.  That is not to say that I, for instance, am necessarily opposed to changes in tradition, accustomed practices or policies.  But I do believe in critically examining proposed changes as to whether they are superior to what is to be supplanted.

Customs and traditions do not spring forth arbitrarily.  They develop for reasons.  To be sure, those reasons are not necessarily eternally valid.  However, historical justifications should be judged for current relevance before jettisoning the traditions, etc., they underpin.

Edmund Burke, the founding father of modern conservatism, expressed this sentiment over two hundred years ago in his iconic Reflections on the Revolution in France:

“It is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society.”

State sanctioned unions between men and women (“traditional marriage”) are such an edifice. 

So why should a relationship between two individuals of the same sex also be subject to recognition of a marriage?

Proponents say it is a civil right.  But that’s not so.    

Marriage is a formal recognition of a relationship.  There are other types:  cohabitation, living together, etc.  The right to enter into a sexual relationship with another of the same gender certainly was once non-existent.  But the law has changed.  And to the extent that marriage provides special benefits to spouses (and it does: social security survivorship benefits, for instance), civil union laws and legal documents (e.g. powers of attorney) can provide equality before the law.  The desire to have one’s homosexual relationship termed a marriage is not a civil right unless one considers a wish to be the same as a right. 

So what really is the driving motivation behind “gay marriage” campaigns?  I suggest that it is not “rights”, but approval.  Proponents want more than legal toleration; homosexuals want society’s endorsement of their conduct.  Their desire is to place same-sex relationships not merely on the same legal footing as that of heterosexuals, but on the same moral plane, as well.

Conservatives are not inclined to grant it.

Marriage has a fundamental purpose.  It is the foundation for a healthy, committed relationship which provides the best setting for raising society’s next generation. 

Does gay marriage undermine traditional marriage and hence weaken that foundation?  I don’t know.  However, the burden of proof, it seems to me, should be on its proponents.

Until the case is proven, Burke’s admonition on “infinite caution” should be the guiding principle for policy on the subject.