How Badly Liberals are Out of Touch

Jonah Goldberg's examination (in National Review Online) of how badly the Left "just doesn't get it." My favorite line: "If liberals always go where the facts take them — you in the back, stop laughing — how is it that liberals ever disagree?"
I'm going night-night.

Speaking of Wanting to Exclude Biblical Morality from the Public Square . . .

Ben Shapiro (here) draws a similar conclusion to the one below (that the Left believes certain varieties of morality are verboten in a democracy) in reference to the Colorado decision tossing out a death sentence because some jurors referenced the Bible in deliberations.

Ex. Senator (and Ex.-Episcopal Priest!) John Danforth Accuses GOP of Promoting Theocracy

In an astonishing (and cliched) NY Times Op/Ed today (here), former Sen. John Danforth, who is currently ambassador to the UN (perfect!) accuses the GOP of having adopted a "sectarian" agenda, citing the Terri Schiavo legislation, opposition to creating guinea humans, and reticence to undefine marriage by extending the privilege to homosexualists, blah, blah, blah, blah. Mr. Danforth, EVERY LAW is someone's morality being imposed on everyone . . . and a person who merely rejects homosexualist marriage, or accepts that human life should not be created for research is not a member of my religious "sect." Just because the Bible condemns murder (or commands us to help poor people) doesn't mean that criminalizing homicide or taxing for welfare amount to instituting a theocracy. Sure, my worldview informs my policy positions, just like Danforth's relativist worldview informs his policy positions. Why is his squishy belief system more appropriate in the political realm than mine?



UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt says it better than I ever could in this op/ed at the Daily Standard.

Blogs and the Left

Just read an interesting op/ed by Jonah Goldberg about "the blogger revolution" or some such...the best section is quoted below:

Left-wing bloggers believe they are part of the same "revolution" as right-wing bloggers are. They're not. The conservative blogs are the shock troops of a decades-long battle to seize back the culture. Conservatives have always had to rely on "alternative media" — magazines, AM radio, blogs — because the Mainstream Media closed the door to conservatives. And even when they let a few token ones in, they had to be labeled "conservative" first and journalists a distant second. The lefty blogs are something else entirely. They represent — much like the still-lame liberal talk radio and the new liberal think tanks — an attempt to copycat conservative successes. Their fight is not with the monolithic mainstream media (or academia) but with the usurpers. Politics is not a battle of technology. It is a battle of ideas, and therein lies all the difference.

I think that's right.

Death of common sense and sound jurisprudence

won't comment on Jerry's squishy death penalty post, but I couldn't help but notice (me and the Washington Post Editorial Board!) another embarrassing fact about the SCt's decision this week...it was a complete reversal from a decision 15 years ago (and Justice Kennedy, who authored the most recent opinion, actually changed his mind and switched his vote). Of course, WaPo will take its victories any way it can get them, but it does highlight liberalism's awkward love affair with rule of men over rule of law. I'll write more later about what it means to be a "conservative jurist."...

Another aspect of this that the Left cannot fathom (in their effort, on any basis possible, to seem more EU-like by overturning Capital Punishment) is that being "of age" is a relatively modern construct. Whereas we can choose any age we want for granting a privilege--hence, we want to make sure a person is mature before allowing them to purchase alcohol, I think it is foolish to contend that it is unconstitutional for a state to leave open the possibility that a 16- or 17-year-old person in a given case knew what s/he was doing when committing a murder