Republicans, it’s time to talk.
We have a primary election coming up on Tuesday. Once again our activists seem to be beating the crap out of each other and the candidates. People who should know better are acting in deplorable, passive-aggressive ways as the circular firing squad continues.
Many of these arguments come back to positioning on issues and how certain beliefs can’t win the popularity contest. Submitted for your digestion is the take of a conservative activist who just wishes we could find someone who can speak the language of the base instead of treating it like lepers.
– – – – –
Have you ever said “I vote on fiscal issues, I don’t care about the social issues?” If so, this post is directed at you.
Do you care about crime? Do you care about safe streets? Do you care about knowing your mother can go to work without being mugged? Do you care about your child being able to go to school without fear of abduction?
I’m going to guess the answer to all of those questions is yes. Which leads me to my next question: Who commits crimes?
People from broken homes commit crimes.
People who have to rely on a gang for bonding and guidance commit crimes.
People who are stuck in a generational cycle of poverty and despair commit crimes.
People who are struggling with addiction and other vices commit crimes.
People who are mentally ill with no familial support system commit crimes.
Guess what all of these things have in common? People raised in a traditional two-parent family with their biological mother and father have vastly lower incidences of committing all of the crimes you worry about.
This is because that family unit is a culture. Specifically, it is Western Civilization’s culture. Western Civilization for as much grief as it gets from useless “critical theory” proponents has built the safest, most modern societies known to humankind. Britain and the United States have basically obliterated any objectively definable poverty among their entire populations. Yes, I know you have anecdotes to the contrary. But culture is an aggregate of expected behavior and broad social results, so it will be discussed that way.
Maybe this has always been my personal internal rudeness, but every time I see a mother alone with several children outside on a weekend the first question that pops into my mind is “Where is the father?” Maybe he’s just working that day, I don’t know. But the fact is politics is downwind of culture. A culture that pretends this basic family unit is an anachronism is a sick culture. A culture that pretends fathers are an expendable nuisance and that divorce over all but the gravest abuses is acceptable is a culture that is going to churn out criminals and dependents in legions. Absent a male role model young men will turn to other young men (gangs). Absent a male role model young women who attract the fancy of young men will not have the fear of God put into them by an older, highly protective father that will offer an example of how women should be treated. The situation is no better for men and women who grow up without a mother, but that isn’t being normalized in our society – No one complains that Mother’s Day gets too much attention.
But lets get beyond theory here to actual policy. I believe that every single system implemented by government is set up that way for a reason. The very nature of our republic demands that every single program that exists had scores of eyes on its language and implementation.
So when our welfare system – as it does – rewards co-habitation and multiple children out-of-wedlock, that happens for a reason. There is a reason why an arrangement that decreases stability and increases dependence is the system supported by law.
When our EBT system – as it does – allows for fictional persons and non-Americans to receive benefits from it, that happens for a reason. There is a reason why vast amounts of taxpayer money is thrown down the drain, and fictional persons by their existence on the rolls reduce the absolute benefit to legitimate recipients is the system supported by law.
When our Medicaid system – as it does – is rewarded for increasing caseloads to ensure more funding, that happens for a reason. There is a reason why government seeking out an ever growing number of people to live on the taxpayer’s dime is the system supported by law.
Here’s the thing – you can’t offer any of these things to people in stable traditional family arrangements, because the vast majority of the time they neither want nor need them. They just want to focus on their own family, their child’s well-being, and be left well enough alone by government intervention. That’s a cultural position that comes with close-knit bonding – people take pride in it and try to improve on it, at least people with the Western ethos.
Social problems cost you money. Rampant crime costs you money. A sick culture is the primary ingredient in every impoverished society on earth. Islamic cultures hold down their women because they value masculinity too much, and church out violent men with no regard for half the human race and a testosterone-fueled zeal for whatever their essentially globalized gang culture desires. By comparison, all we have in America are idiotic social policies that incentivize waste and create dependency and ruin. Why does that matter? Because in our system the vote of the wasteful and ruinous is just as good as yours. I propose the system is set up the way it is because those systems create dependency, and dependency creates a solid block of geographically dense votes to continue itself. They won’t get out because the system is designed in a way that they can’t get out. In this country, that block of votes is the block that votes Democrat.
Republicans are never going to take away benefits for people on the system that have legitimately fallen on hard times. We’re just going to stop fictional people from diluting the pool and change the incentive structure so that your kids and grandkids have a prayer of growing up to live under a roof that isn’t owned by the State or in a neighborhood that isn’t ruled by a gang.
So here’s the question, fiscal con / social mod voters:
Who created the broken policies that cause these perverse incentives?
Do you really think those perverse incentives fit any reasonable definition of moderate?
Are you going to stop voting for those people now? Are you going to stop pretending their position is defensible because it is popular when in fact it is purposefully and demonstrably destructive? If not, when?
Social issues are costing you your money and your civilization. Social conservatives care about social issues because it’s evil to keep people dependent and struggling for their entire lives, to keep them praying that the 1st of the next month comes sooner just so that they can eat and live indoors.
Fiscal cons / Social mods need to stop treating social conservatives like we’re stupid or backward or not paying attention. We are paying attention – we just don’t care about whatever popularity contest you’re trying to win by supporting continued damage to the social fabric of the nation. Stable families vote Republican. Dependents who live in a controlled fear and special interest groups that benefit from societal decay vote Democrat. If you want to raid your own pocket in the long run to win a popularity contest, that’s your prerogative. All I want is for you to drop the elitist pretense.
This is a numbers game, and unless you’re supporting policies that increase the absolute numbers of your base, you can run as many pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republicans as you want in an attempt to win a popularity contest. They’ll have the same relevance as Governor Baker, Senator Brown, and Congressman Tisei do. We run them and they lose, because they have shown little or no indication of even thinking about anything I’ve mentioned here. They can’t speak to their base. The can’t speak core values because they don’t have core values – they have carefully crafted poll-tested politically popular positions with no intellectual understanding of them.
Activists like me are aware of the reality on the ground, we know that often this is the best we get. Your problem isn’t with activists, we buckle up for every ride you put us on. The problem is your candidates don’t even know the language of your own base – you’re too busy hating us and preening over how socially relevant you are.
You don’t even have to agree with my particular take on any given issue- I’m genuinely conservative, maybe you’re genuinely moderate – but the system as it exists, especially in Massachusetts is neither conservative not moderate. The system is stupid and purposefully destructive. So stop treating me like the enemy because conservatism is unpopular with your big city friends and start treating them like the enemy because they are the enemy by virtue of the policies they support, as implemented by the people for whom they vote.