Unfortunately, there is another element of the right that is at odds with traditional conservatives. The libertarian strand of the right, while understanding the destructiveness of statism, aid and abet the continued marginalization of conservatives as “extremists.” This was brought home in the Virginia governor’s race. During the past few weeks I had to sit through an endless stream of commercials that painted Ken Cuccinelli as some kind of deranged, woman-hating psycho who wanted to forcibly impregnate women and force them to carry their babies to term, all the while suffering physical and emotional abuse from their alcoholic husbands whom he will not allow the women to divorce. Instead of fighting these ridiculous mischaracterizations, bloggers like Ace of Spades and some of his dutiful Randians insist that, yeah, Cuccinelli is kind of a nut who does want to take away women’s birth control.
Despite the libertarian wing’s fundamental misunderstanding of conservative policy aims, and their general mockery of us Church ninnies, there is oddly more potential for conservatives and libertarians to work together than for conservatives and neocons to do so. Ultimately the policy aims of libertarians and conservatives are not so radically different. This is not to minimize the very real differences in our approach to social issues, but at least libertarians suffer no illusions about how the machinery of the state can be used to bring us a little bit closer to utopia. I think this is a bridgeable gap, though I am pessimistic about the chances for a revived fusionism on the right between these two camps.
Which brings me to the results tonight. It is sickening that someone as truly loathsome as Terry McAuliffe has been elevated to the highest position in the fine state of Virginia. I’m sure he’s not the worst person to be elected to high office, and even not in the state of Virginia, but he’s got to be near the top of slimiest creeps to attain a governorship. What is truly ominous about McAuliffe’s election is that it represents a perfect storm of all the worst elements of modern politics. First, you have the infiltration of leftists in the northern part of the state, seeking to bring the bad ideas that ruined the northeastern part of the country to this part of the world. Then you have Cuccinelli being betrayed both by the neocon Establishment, specifically the sitting Lieutenant Governor and his minions who petulantly refused to endorse Cuccinelli, and the libertarians who believed every bogeyman myth about Cuccinelli, going so far as to vote for the fake libertarian candidate who is basically just another left-winger.
With states like Virginia appearing more and more to be lost causes, what hope is there?
So that is why this Union loving guy is starting to see the logic in secession. After all, even though the Confederates may have fought for the wrong cause, does that mean that secession is itself a completely bad idea? I’ve long said yes, now I’m not so sure. Of course I’ve always believed in the right to revolution (it’s there in the Catechism, too), but secession is a bit of a different idea as it permits states to simply leave the federal union. You don’t necessarily have to have suffered a “long train of abuses,” but rather you just have to not like the current policies of your federal government.
Even if states can’t walk away from the Union, can’t parts of states walk away from the rest of the state? Well, we have justification for that, ironically from the Civil War itself. West Virginia was permitted to detach itself from the rest of the state. (I’ll let you all ponder that had that separation not happened, Cuccinelli would likely be the governor-elect right now.)
The reason that my secessionist bones are tingling is that I really have to wonder if we can truly continue to exist as a behemoth federal Union. The Federalist Papers are chock full of arguments against confederation, and the need to have an extensive Union. But would Madison have countenanced a nation of 300 million souls all governed under one umbrella, especially when that umbrella government takes on more and more powers? It’s at least something worth pondering.
As I mentioned in the first post, federalism only truly works if the central government is limited in scope (not size, as discussed by McCarthy). The Hamiltonian vision was one of a strong central government that was limited in the extent of its powers, but fairly strong within the scope of said powers. Once the federal government takes on more and more authority, then individual states lose more of their own authority and even identity. Is a Texan or a Tennessean truly as free and independent as they think? Will they be in 30 years?
One may counter that conservatives must simply do better at winning national elections. While this is partly true, all even a roundly conservative federal government can do is merely halt the tide of federal intervention in state affairs, biding time for the next statist administration. Also, what’s a nation to do when a simple majority have roundly rejected the ideals of limited government? At what point do the outnumbered citizens just throw their hands in the air and surrender?
Perhaps we haven’t reached that point, and God willing we never will. But I tremble at the thought of what’s to come.
As long as you’re trembling with joyful expectation, you’ll be alright.
Thank you for these thoughtful posts.
I don’t cast the election in such dire shades. Virginia, unlike most Southern states, has never been an easy win for the Republicans on the state wide level. Since Reconstruction there has been a grand total of six Republican governors and the Republicans and the Democrats have traded the office back and forth since the Republicans became viable in the state. The elections did not put a dent in Republican dominance of the House of Delegates with Republicans now enjoying a 67-33 advantage. Cuccinelli was harmed by the scandals that have tainted the McDonnell administration, he made the mistake of not beating Bolling in a primary instead of engineering a change in the rules allowing him to be nominated by a convention, which allowed Bolling to play off the lie that Cuccinelli would not have trounced him in a primary and thus allowed him to promote a schism that cost Cuccinelli the election. Cuccinelli, and the conservative movement nationally, allowed himself to be outspent massively by the crook McAuliffe and that is a failure of politics 101. Finally, Cuccinelli followed the tried and true loser strategy of running and hiding when McAuliffe ran his ceaseless ads attacking him on abortion, instead of meeting it head on and painting McAuliffe, accurately, as a man who wanted Kermit Gosnell style abortion mills throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bottom line is that Cuccinelli ran a bad campaign and he was almost saved at the end by the public’s negative reaction to ObamaCare, with most of the pre-election polls vastly overstating the size of the winning margin by the odious McAuliffe. That is the most interesting factoid I take away from last night’s election. Conservatives should have won this race, but conservatives are not immune from losing when a candidate makes as many mistakes as Cuccinelli did.
Interesting article on the Virginia election and how McAuliffe barely won despite polls showing him coasting to victory:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-governor-2013-elections-99441.html
If the election had been held two weeks later, maybe even just a week later, I think the ObamaCare fallout would cause us now to be writing about Cuccinelli’s upset win.
I don’t think this signals the end of Virginia as we know it, necessarily, but there are a couple of disheartening things about this election that make me concerned. As I mentioned in the post, the factors that led to McAuliffe’s win make me pessimistic about the ability of conservatives to reassert themselves nationally. Republicans may thrive, and indeed I think the next President of the United States was re-elected in New Jersey last night, but that’s a different matter. And of course there’s the fact that McAwful is one of, if not the most left-wing individuals to become governor of Virginia. Add that to the sleaze factor, and it’s a depressing outcome.
Barry Goldwater Paul, at the 1960 Republican convention, said that it was time for conservatives to grow up and get to work, because they could take control of the Republican party. Sound advice then, and now, even though Goldwater in his declining years turned pro-abort RINO himself. The establishment Republicans have the dollars for now, but they do not have the troops, and ultimately in politics that is what matters. Time for all conservatives to get to work to defeat the RINOs within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats without.
Actually I have some hope that federalism might once again become in vogue, but more by practice than the spread of the idea.
For one, you don’t have to look far before finding some numbers IN THE NORTH (and west) who wonder why the civil war was fought at all. In other words, “Why do we want those stupid rednecks interfering with our lives?”
I don’t know if I’ll see it in my lifetime, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if secession is eventually attempted by some group, and succeeds because 1) the feds budget is too screwed up to let them wage a war (particularly against potential tax payers) and 2) nobody else feels like it’s worth dying to keep the group running away a part of the team.
Save some ire for the RNC which spent 6 million less in Virgiania this cycle than four years ago.
And if Chris Christie is the best the Republican Party can do, then the hell with it.
No, guys, this is the end of Virginia as we’ve known it. It began when Obama won the state TWICE. Beginning with Eisenhower, no Democrat – except for LBJ – had won the vote during presidential elections in Virginia. Until the most liberal politician ever to run for President came along and won the state twice.
Since then, the federal government has become only more bloated with carpet-baggers moving in by the droves into Northern Virginia to make even traditionally Republican counties like Loudon and Prince William majority Democrat strongholds. Then, you move to my home area of Charlottesville. It used to be that the city was solidly Democrat and Albemarle County was solidly Republican. Over the years, the city became even more entrenched Democrat, and slowly but surely, the County shifted from red to purple to officially blue last night as the Democrats swept all of the Board of Supervisor slots that were open. The Dems now have an outright majority on the Board of Supervisors in a county that sent George Allen to the General Assembly (before he became U.S. Congressman, then Governor, then U.S. Senator). Nowadays, George Allen couldn’t go to the store to buy dogfood for his dog without being looked at cross-wise in Albemarle County.
And now, the Commonwealth has elected someone who, 5 years ago, would have been UNTHINKABLE in the Old Dominion. I mean, just 4 years ago, Creigh Deeds was thought to be preferable to T-Mac by most Democrats. This is the end of Virginia as I’ve known and loved it – it just is – when a vile scumbag like Terry McAuliffe can be elected Governor. And, not only that, this is a historic election in the sense that this is the first time in probably 50-60 years that Virginia elected a Governor of the same party as the President. That reflects, in my mind, a sea change. Democrats are now powerful enough in Virginia to overcome electoral trends – voting for the GOP in presidential elections and voting for opposite-party Governors in off-year elections – that have held true for generations.
There is now a built-in Democrat advantage in NOVA that is just too difficult to consistently overcome. There may be an occasional GOP statewide victory to crow about, but they will be few and far between. Virginia is now like New York and Illinois – a generally conservative state dominated by a far-left liberal population center that skews the outcome of every election. Get used to it. (Although I’m not sure I can.)
The Republican Governors’ Association gave almost nine million to Cuccinelli as opposed to three million to Bob McDonnell in 2009. The party as a whole did not underfund this race. Cuccinelli simply did not raise enough cash on his own.
Thankfully Christie is not typical of Republican governors around the country. He will be the nominee however in 2016 if a high quality candidate does not get in, and leaves it to no-hopers like in 2012 or the high quality candidate self destructs, and I am looking at you Governor Perry.
“And, not only that, this is a historic election in the sense that this is the first time in probably 50-60 years that Virginia elected a Governor of the same party as the President. “
I think I probably overstated that by about a decade or so. It’s more like 40 years since Virginia elected a Governor from the same party as the sitting President.
on the ground, in Chesterfield county, it is increasingly apparent that the strong downstate conservative vote in Virginia can no longer overcome the behemothic power of Fairfax (1 million+ population), Loudoun, and Prince William.
The high population of these NoVa counties is entirely the creature of the federal government and its contractors; without government, these communities would be about as large as mine, 300-500 k.
This change has totally transformed Virginia from a conservative state (Democrat in the old days, Repub now) to a more or less reliably blue state.
While the GA remains conservative, it increasingly appears that in any state wide elections, the taking class outweighs the productive class.
Hence, two liberal Dem senators; two Obama wins; and now, an apparent sweep of the top state offices of Governor, AG, and Lt. Gov. (AG race is very close, but leaning Dem).
If secession is the topic, it would be best if NoVa seceeded from the Commonwealth; they can have everything north of the Rappahannock.
Seems the country is just too big and too diverse (i.e., split) to effectively run it under one centralized government. I doubt there will be secession in a formal sense, but as the central government slowly collapses under its own weight, regional governments will fill the vacuum naturally. That could take decades, if not longer, barring some catastrophe that blows it all to smithereens.
[…] of a Conservative I & II – Paul Zummo, […]
I shudder for the world if the United States becomes the DisUnited States. I would oppose such a movement until there was no breath in my body.
Despite the libertarian wing’s fundamental misunderstanding of conservative policy aims, and their general mockery of us Church ninnies, there is oddly more potential for conservatives and libertarians to work together than for conservatives and neocons to do so.
Again, ‘neocon’ is a nonsense term.
Much of the discourse concerning ‘establishment Republicans’ maps not to a dispute over principles but a dispute derived from social relations for which programmatic preferences are the epiphenomena. The establishment thinking is a function of who they associate with, donor pressure, and Capitol Hill gamesmanship. Hal Rogers is troublesome in a way Olympia Snowe was not.
Your capacity to ‘work with’ libertarians will be a function of the degree to which they do not, a la Ron Paul, vet reality against ideology and do not, a la Bryan Caplan, adhere to programmatic nostrums which amount to what one critic called ‘applied autism’. The thing is, a libertarian of that stripe (think Megan McArdle or the younger David Frum) will likely be the least interested in a crusade against old age transfers.
I can’t help but wonder if there was any voter fraud.
I can’t help but wonder if there was any voter fraud.
They are not above it. The son of the congressman who represents one of the NoVa districts was shnagged in a sting operation a couple of years back (his father is a well known lout). What was interesting was the immediate and casual and knowledgeable way he was willing to engage in chicanery when it was proposed. The thing is, could they steal a sufficient number of votes? It is a reasonable thesis that Democratic officialdom in Minnesota and Washington state have stolen marquee contests in the last decade and I believe there is was a case proved in court a decade or so ago that the mayoral election in one Florida city was stolen, so it can happen when the right conditions allow it. Andrew Sullivan once had an encounter with Terry McAuliffe at a television station and he said it seemed as if the man emitted a trail of green slime as he moved about the room.
What is really disquieting is the promiscuous use of absentee ballots and early voting. My suspicion is that absentee ballot fraud is a much bigger problem than tabulation fraud or impersonation at the polls. Still, the hysterical way that partisan Democrats have reacted to voter ID legislation leads me to believe that there has to be in the language of such laws provisions which take tools out of the kit used by Democratic precinct workers and such. Although partisan Democrats are wont to strike attitudes in the silliest way – that’s how they roll – I cannot imagine that they would beclown themselves so in the first instance (tho’ it has now taken on a life of its own) and puke money into legal challenges unless there were a real problem for them. I suppose I should study the text of these laws. I would love to know what’s being disrupted.
I supported Cuccinelli and agree that he did not run a good campaign. Geraghty pointed out that campaigning for governor now means going all out and giving up the day job. Two of the many troubling things about this election were:1 Richmond paper refusing to endorse either and citing Cuccinelli’s stand on social issues as equivalent to a carpetbagger hack who is possibly liable for indictment for fraud and 2) the concern that practicing Catholics striving for high profile offices are unlikely to survive the media and elites of both parties trashing them for their beliefs see Santorum, Cuccinelli etc as opposed to faux Catholics like our governor O’Malley who wants to be president or VP and Biden etc who get passes from the clergy and the media.
I’m with Paul; if libertarians can get over the “ick” factor of dealing with social conservatives, they could come to see that we have the same desire for freedom, especially the freedom to fail.
What’s not to like about preventing tax dollars from paying for abortions? Isn’t this a win-win for libertarians and so-cons?
I understand he’s struggling right now, but I felt that Rand Paul was demonstrating the best grasp of how to talk about these issues to bridge the divide.
David Horowitz (neocon? beyond?) has an essay at NRO that urges us to learn to speak of freedom in moral terms.
Perhaps I should clarify: freedom to fail (and to get back up again) is necessary because the alternative is that the government won’t let you fail, and you become as livestock.
Perhaps I should clarify: freedom to fail (and to get back up again) is necessary because the alternative is that the government won’t let you fail, and you become as livestock.
How is ‘fail’ defined here?
Art, fail = the freedom to make mistakes. To suffer some economic consequences for your actions, well short of death or dismemberment, that may not be neatly remedied in your lifetime for you.
For example, I read in the paper this morning yet another call for income-based repayment of student loans, by WSJ David Wessel. He says “borrowing is risky, particularly for those who pick the wrong school or program or don’t get a degree or can’t find a good job.” He suggests “one prudent way to help college grads reap the benefits of a degree while reducing risk of crushing debt burdens is linking repayment to income: The more you earn, the faster you pay back the loan. If college really doesn’t pay off, you pay less.” It’s all forgiven after 25 years. But taxpayers will never be on the hook (cross my heart and hope to die!) because government experts (who resist all political pressure!) will set the interest rates high enough to cover costs and defaults.
So, if you pick the wrong major, you will never be an object lesson to your brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and cousins and sons and daughters.
I would (and have) put what Tamsin (via Horowitz) is talking about this way:
I was blessed to grow up in a time and place where the biggest problems and obstacles I’ve had to face have all been mostly self-inflicted. Sure, I’m at the mercy of nature and bad luck (that’s what insurance is for), but for the most part, I haven’t had to worry about what to do about other people making my life miserable not only because they can, but because they have a de facto right to. I don’t know if that’s going to be true for my children, or their children.
Cuccinelli won married women but lost unmarried women by forty percent. You just can’t give away a block of votes that large and hope to win. He lost those women because they perceived him as a religious nutcase.
Bob McDonnell holds most of the same positions on social issues as Cuccinelli does, but he is not perceived as a nut. The Democrats tried the same attack on him four years earlier with much less success. Why the difference? Maybe it’s because Cuccinelli really is a nutcase.
While Attorney General, Cuccinelli wasted a great deal of time, effort and taxpayer money defending a 1950 law making oral sex illegal. Many states have silly laws left on the books from generations ago. No one these days ever tries to defend them, especially since the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case made clear that any such defense was going to lose. Cuccinelli lost at every level, and even appealed to the Supreme Court, as if there was some legitimate state interest in what anyone, even a married couple, does in the privacy of their own home. He didn’t have to do this. He could have dropped the case at any stage, and no one outside of a few nutcases would have minded. He has amply demonstrated that he actually is a nut.
It sounds like you fell for the propaganda hook, line and sinker Jeff. Here are the actual facts:
“That was the shrill storyline on liberal blogs yesterday, touched off by a legal petition filed by Cuccinelli’s office over a court ruling on the state’s anti-sodomy laws. Unsurprisingly, the “anti-gay” frame is a total red herring. Cuccinelli’s narrow interest in the case lies in upholding a conviction of a 47-year-old man who solicited a sexual act from a 17-year-old girl. The Washington Post reports:
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has challenged a recent court ruling finding Virginia’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The appeal has gotten national attention as Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial bid ramps up. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled on March 12 that Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature” statute, which banned oral and anal sex, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One judge dissented, agreeing with a lower court that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas on sodomy laws applied only to consenting adults. The case in question involved a teenage girl and a 47-year-old man, William Scott MacDonald, who was convicted of soliciting a minor to commit a felony. A petition was filed on Cuccinelli’s behalf asking for the full 15-judge court to reconsider the panel’s decision. LGBT advocates have expressed disappointment, saying the law is unconstitutional and anti-gay. “This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator,” Cuccinelli spokeswoman Caroline Gibson said in a statement. “We agree with the dissenting opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief and the full court should have the opportunity to decide this matter. The attorney general is committed to protecting Virginia’s children from predators who attempt to exploit them and rob them of their childhood.” Cuccinelli agrees with the dissenting judge, Albert Diaz, who was appointed to the 4th Circuit by President Obama in 2009, who argued for deference to the Virginia Court of Appeals.”
Whatever you think of Lawrence v. Texas and sodomy laws in general, it’s clear that Cuccinelli’s position here has absolutely nothing to do with consenting adults or gay rights. It’s about a case involving a man pushing 50 and a high school-aged girl. Oh, and the Attorney General’s office is siding with an Obama appointee’s ruling on the matter.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/04/04/no-ken-cuccinelli-isnt-targeting-gays-in-sodomy-law-challenge-n1558109
You just can’t give away a block of votes that large and hope to win. He lost those women because they perceived him as a religious nutcase.
Jeff, he lost by something on the order of 1.5 percentage points. Quite a slew of demographic segments could have provided that margin (boosted with forged absentee ballots). Also, McAuliffe won a plurality vote due to the presence of a ‘libertarian’ candidate whose modal financier was an Obama bundler. If Virginia made use of ordinal balloting (which Minneapolis made use of in its municipal elections this year), it is a reasonable wager that Cuccinelli would have won.
While Attorney General, Cuccinelli wasted a great deal of time, effort and taxpayer money defending a 1950 law making oral sex illegal.
It is not a waste, Jeff. Discretion over such matters is rightly with legislatures, not tenured lawyers. That principle is worth defending. The utility of such laws is that they inhibit the mainstreaming of sodomy.
Ah ha! Here’s the Goldberg article that was going through my head while I read this series.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358147/myth-live-and-let-live-liberalism-jonah-goldberg
And to quote from his G-file today:
Don, I said nothing at all about sexual orientation. I am simply pointing out that Cuccinelli pursued a case that he should have known was hopeless, and for no good reason that I can discern.
Trying to keep someone in jail at the cost of upholding an abominable law is precisely the kind of (non-)thinking most of us don’t want in office. It doesn’t matter what the particular case is. Long after any particular case is over, the laws involved will still be there. You don’t argue for bad laws just because you want to put someone in jail, no matter how awful the potential inmate may be. When a court invalidates a really bad law, the Attorney General should drop the case, not waste resources defending the indefensible. Particularly when it is obvious that he will lose.
The utility of such laws is that they inhibit the mainstreaming of sodomy. Art, can you possibly be serious? Oral sex has been mainstream for decades. Even the Catholic church does not object to oral sex when it is part of foreplay. But the law Cuccinelli was defending says just about every married couple out there, including the vast majority of Catholics, should be in jail.
This is not a close call. It’s just crazy. So you have to ask yourself: Why did Cuccinelli make himself a laughingstock over this? Particularly since he couldn’t win. The suspicion is that he really wants, for some reason, to change people’s sexual practices. If you can’t see that this is none of the government’s business, you’re as hopeless as Cuccinelli is. Sure, it would be better if the legislature were to do it’s job and repeal laws like this, but when that doesn’t happen, the courts can and will step in. I get the feeling you think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided. Good luck with that.
“Don, I said nothing at all about sexual orientation.”
Nope, you merely parroted the Democrat talking points used in their campaign, and made it appear as if Cuccinelli was waging an anti-sodomy campaign which was a lie.
“I am simply pointing out that Cuccinelli pursued a case that he should have known was hopeless, and for no good reason that I can discern.”
To make sure a pedophile did not escape punishment seems like a very good reason to me.
“Trying to keep someone in jail at the cost of upholding an abominable law is precisely the kind of (non-)thinking most of us don’t want in office.”
Complete and total rubbish. Executive elected officials do not get to pick and choose the laws, at least they should not. It is the job of the legislature to determine the law. Of course all states had this type of “abominable law”, to use your histrionic phrase, until the day before yesterday in historical terms.
“When a court invalidates a really bad law, the Attorney General should drop the case, not waste resources defending the indefensible. Particularly when it is obvious that he will lose.”
Actually it was not at all obvious, which is why an Obama appointee on the Federal panel sided with Cuccinelli.
“Neither Cuccinelli nor anyone in Virginia government is attempting to use the anti-sodomy law against consenting adults of any proclivity. Cucinelli feels that the law is an important way for the state to charge pedophiles with a crime against children. On this Cuccinelli is not alone. As it happens, of the 90 sex offenders prosecuted since 2003 using the anti-sodomy law, 38 (42 percent) were prosecuted by Democratic attorneys. So, this law has been used in a bi-partisan manner.
In the case that brought national attention to the issue, Cuccinelli is attempting to convict a 47-year-old pedophile for soliciting a 17-year-old girl.
As Cuccinelli spokesperson Caroline Gibson says, “This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator.”
The law, Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature” statute, was struck down in March by the U.S. Court of Appeals, but a dissenting judge pointed out that the law does not apply to consenting adults and Cuccinelli is only attempting to apply the statute to cases of rape and sexual crimes against minors.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/23/Does-Whoopi-Goldberg-Know-Democrat-Prosecutors-Used-Anti-Sodomy-Law-in-Virginia
On the bright side, Mr. Hallman reminds us all why we should amend to the Constitution so as to elect Supreme Court Justices who are then charged with appointing the President and the Congress.
Or maybe we should let the elected State Supreme Courts appoint the Congress?