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.
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 […]
Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty (Washington Post)
In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”…
…They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
Palmieri responds that Catholicism “is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” “Excellent point,” Halpin responds, adding that “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.” Podesta is included on both emails.
Albert Mohler comments here on how it is apparently the worst of the worst to be considered an “evangelical”. So much for tolerance!
On a side note: the idea of subsidiarity is an amazing idea and represents of how the framers of the Constitution and many founding fathers viewed the role and responsibilities of the federal government compared to local and state authority. Very libertarian and limited government oriented.
Thought of the day:
Memes are good conversation starters…But NOT good arguments.
Unrelated Articles of the day:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-liberal-gets-religion-1473722200 (you do not need to subscribe to WSJ to read this, just type the title “A Liberal ‘Gets’ Religion” in Google search)
Coercion and cultural bias against conservative religious groups?
-U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report- http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF
-New American Bar Association Rules- http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/08/12/briefing-08-12-16/
In today’s marketplace of ideas it is easy to get bogged down in the game of name-calling. The idea being that it is much easier to discount someone’s argument once their personal reputation has been soiled. Unfortunately, this seems to be “winning” strategy on all sides of the political spectrum and the election season IS its […]