Peggy Noonan is former presidential speechwriter and current columnist and author wrote a recent article called The Parkland Massacre and the Air We Breathe. Noonan perceptively identifies the degradation of our society starting with the dissolution of the family as well as cultural inputs which are negatively impacting all of us.
Near the end of her article she proposes a compromise in public policy goals between Republicans and Democrats when she says,
The idea: Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion. Make illegal a killing machine and a killing procedure.
In both cases the lives of children would be saved.
Wouldn’t this clean some of the air? Wouldn’t we all breathe a little easier?
It is a provocative and innovative proposal that is likely meant to call both the Republican’s and Democrat’s bluff rather than be taken seriously as a piece of legislation. However, I can see this type of idea being more popular among voters as the debate on guns moves forward.
Noonan clearly sees that each group wants the opposition’s purported rights eradicated on moral grounds. However, her case is a bit too simplistic in that the moral analogy of banning a gun versus banning the killing of an unborn child are not, in my opinion, equally weighted. The analogy further slips when comparing the two in light of the Constitution whereas one right is explicit and pervasive since the founding and the other is interpreted as implied and added late. However, I see the merit in offering her argument as an olive branch in hopes of some change.
We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. –C. S. Lewis Nobody can actually be on the “wrong side” of history since history is just a sequence […]
I understand the hurt that pro-Hillary voters feel following their surprising loss to Trump. It was a surprise for everyone. And I still remember vividly the pain I felt after losing the last two elections to Obama. Empathy and concern for all Americans has always been a path toward healing following a divisive campaign season. For those who have not been alive long enough to witness a transfer of power, this process can be uneasy to accept. However, we need to remember two things, 1. this is the way that our government was set up to run and it has sustained peaceful transitions of power successfully thus far, and 2. Most election cycles are filled with deep divisiveness and vitriol due to a disagreeing populace. This is not the first or last time we will have disagreement on how to govern our country. Disagreement and diversity of opinion is what makes our world (the U.S.) go around. Majority rule is not the answer. Trashing the Electoral College is not the answer.
Videos: Do you understand the Electoral College? and The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College
Articles: The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We’re Not A Democracy AND Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote and The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and Why the 2016 Election Proves America Needs the Electoral College
Conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats all share in the responsibility to hold the President-Elect accountable at every level. The rise in popularity of Trump has been described well HERE but regardless of the reason for his ascent, it is all of our duty as “we the people” to participate in the conservation of this great Constitutional Republic.
I am pleased with the class and honor that Hillary and Obama showed following the election. They showed humility and honor to the process and principles that have maintained this country’s greatness.
HERE Obama’s remarks on peaceful and smooth transition.
HERE Clinton’s concession speech
There is a cynical part of me that wants to not trust the genuine nature certain pieces of Hillary’s speech but I must avoid that temptation. Her and Tim Kaine both quoted from the Bible and with humility and tact she reached back to traditional American values of hard work and perseverance encouraging people to never give up on what they know is right. She also used pro-Constitutional language when praising the First Amendment with its freedom of religion and expression. She lauded our tradition of following the rule of law.
My cynical question is, where was all of this on the campaign trail? She did not show any preference toward the constitution or traditional pro-American values. It was all divisive pandering to the fringe left. She knows that she lost 85% of the evangelical vote to Trump. She knows that evangelicals care about the First Amendment and that the amendment has been the recipient of constant attack under Obama for the last 8 years. I would hate to think that she somehow used this speech as the beginning of new a campaigning outreach tool for the DNC so that they can capture more evangelicals next time.
Again, I think her humble approach and sincere demeanor in her speech is admirable. I hope that she was sincere and I hope that people rioting in the streets in protest to the election outcomes can take her example as the right response.
Over the past several months I have been encouraged by finding self-identified “classical liberals” calling for more dialogue between opposing views in response to the volatile political climate. One of these voices is Dave Rubin. I respect what he is trying to do even though I disagree with him on many levels in terms of policy. He is […]
The Ridiculous Crusade for Gender-Neutral Toys
We never taught our kids any of this stuff. They just arrived at it on their own. Because—I understand that this is a radical concept—boys and girls are different….
…One of the oddities of modern life is that polite society currently insists that you are “born this way” if you are homosexual or misgendered. But when it comes to boys who like to play with swords and build fighter jets? For some reason, this is viewed as a societal construct that should be eradicated so that they’ll want to play with dolls.
As we’ve discovered at my house, this is a project that’s doomed to fail.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
This is Alexander Hamilton’s (a Federalist) view on the vicious and divisive election season of 1800 to vote for who would be the 3rd president of the US. The quote implies he would rather have Jefferson (an anti-federalist) win as opposed to the enemy within his own party (John Adams).
The advice seems pertinent in our current context of the 2016 election as many true conservatives and small government libertarians see both major party candidates as an enemy.
This is not a call to actually vote for Hillary if you are a conservative but it is a call to NOT VOTE for Trump.