Bachmann Watch
In
Doug Grow's Strib column, he mentions that Michele Bachmann's thought process was "hard to track." Here's a glimpse into Grow's liberal mindset:
The difference between yesterday's liberal and today's liberal is that today's liberal is advocating every minority right that pops into their head. As much as anything, I believe that this best explains how Democrats went from being the "Party of the People" to the party they are now.
Today's Democratic Party has been so consumed by special interest causes that they aren't the average person's advocate anymore. Here's how that relate with the present:
The reason why Michele Bachmann is the people's "star" is because she understands that society needs certain stabilizing forces. Right now, the chief among the 'forces' most in need of bolstering is marriage as we've known it for the past 4-6 millennia.
It isn't that Sen. Bachmann doesn't understand peoples' rights. In my opinion, it's that she understands that society needs to set boundaries on what's healthy and what isn't.
What Grow hasn't grasped is that every cause doesn't have to be about rights. Some causes are simply society's attempt to maintain it's moral and societal health.
This amendment simply means that pinheaded judges won't sent social policy; people will. That's a basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that social policy should be set by the legislative and executive branches, a concept liberals don't like since they stopped winning elections.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:32 AM
No comments.
The Stillwater Republican isn't just a state senator. To a segment of people who gather most days at the State Capitol, she's their voice. Their star. "Look at this," she said, motioning to the crowd. "This is the No. 1 issue in the state." Getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent certainly is her No. 1 issue.This is a great glimpse into a liberal's mind. Three decades ago, Democrats took the lead in increasing a women's rights. Back then, that was an honorable thing to do.
And that perplexes me more than most things do. Expansion of rights has been a good thing for all Americans. Certainly, Bachmann has enjoyed the rights won by the women who came before her. She can vote, a right women didn't attain nationally until 1920. She had the opportunity to get an advanced law degree from the College of William and Mary, which wouldn't have been possible until 1935.
The difference between yesterday's liberal and today's liberal is that today's liberal is advocating every minority right that pops into their head. As much as anything, I believe that this best explains how Democrats went from being the "Party of the People" to the party they are now.
Today's Democratic Party has been so consumed by special interest causes that they aren't the average person's advocate anymore. Here's how that relate with the present:
The reason why Michele Bachmann is the people's "star" is because she understands that society needs certain stabilizing forces. Right now, the chief among the 'forces' most in need of bolstering is marriage as we've known it for the past 4-6 millennia.
It isn't that Sen. Bachmann doesn't understand peoples' rights. In my opinion, it's that she understands that society needs to set boundaries on what's healthy and what isn't.
What Grow hasn't grasped is that every cause doesn't have to be about rights. Some causes are simply society's attempt to maintain it's moral and societal health.
Isn't Bachmann at least a little conflicted in her fight against gay couples having even legally sanctioned unions?First off, notice the emphasis that Grow puts "essential irreducible complexity." It's like words spoken in Martian. Secondly, Grow is making the simple complex, a common habit amongst liberals.
"The whole purpose of this amendment isn't to restrict anyone's rights," she said. "It's to let the people decide the laws we live under. And I will make sure that gays and lesbians have the same right to vote as anyone else."
----------
She said it was wrong when there were laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying each other. This is different. "Gender is an essential irreducible complexity," she said. Irreducible complexity, a term favored in intelligent design circles, apparently means a baseline truth.
This amendment simply means that pinheaded judges won't sent social policy; people will. That's a basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that social policy should be set by the legislative and executive branches, a concept liberals don't like since they stopped winning elections.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:32 AM
No comments.
