In Which I Am Vindicated

A while back I posted about the head of the Michigan Republican Party wanting to ban libertarian Ron Paul from further Republican debates because he doesn't toe the party line on matters of conservative orthodoxy. I used the event as an illustration of the conservative Republican urge to regulate everything that doesn't please them.

I took a fair amount of crap about that, in comments, since some of my conservative regular readers believe Republicans are reasonable and the head of the Michigan Republican Party is a nobody who's illustrative of nothing.

So here's fun: FreeRepublic, certainly one of the most vigorous conservative blogs and online communities, has banned support of Rudy Giuliani because his beliefs don't toe the party line on matters of conservative orthodoxy. Those who post in Giuliani's favor are being banned from additional posting; pro-Giuliani comments are being deleted.

And the conservative urge to authoritarianism is once again vividly illustrated.

Comments

[Broken Gnome]

A (meaning, one) conservative blogger has taken a bizarre and draconian position on his blog and you feel vindicated to extrapolate this to all conservatives. This is not a good way to engage conservatives (or anyone but the radical left)in a dialogue that might convince them of your viewpoint's validity or allow you to see some wisdom in their stances. This is the same rationale that lets people say, "Blacks are lazy and steal" or "Gay men are pederasts." Your arguments against the limiting of viewpoints within any political party are valid, your painting the opposition with such a broad brush, however, is not in keeping with your usual penchant for fairness on your blog.

[Righty]

I think we're seeing years of resentment between the religious/social right ("RR") and mainstream Republicans ("MR") coming to a head. Of course, the outcome is rather obvious. If Giuliani gets the nomination, he will likely win or the election will be far closer than it should have been, weakening the RR. If the RR are able to kill the Giuliani nomination, they will almost certainly lose in a blowout with Thompson or Romney, weakening the RR and convincing the MR that if Giuliani had been nominated, we wouldn't have been forced to suffer through President Clinton II.

Perhaps most insulting in this whole affair is that the MR is very conservative on fiscal issues, whereas the RR has some of their favorite candidates who are shaky at best on economic conservativism -- yet they call Giuliani a "liberal" and their tax-raising scum "conservative."

Its a fairly intense situation. I know that if Giuliani doesn't get the nod, that I won't vote for Captain Christian Caveman or whomever they select, for the first time in my life. I'll probably sit out or go for Bloomberg.

[Scott]

And the conservative urge to authoritarianism is once again vividly illustrated.

Biggest. Reach. Ever.

[Tom]

Scott writes from his home in Texas, where not-at-all-authoritarian conservative Republicans are prosecuting a woman who sold vibrators. The law under which she is being prosecuted -- which was written by a Republican legislator, passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican governor -- treats those who sell sex toys as sex criminals.

You're right, Scott. There's nothing authoritarian at all about Republicans. Whatever could I have been thinking?

[Rodger]

I don't think Broken Gnome is a regular reader of Free Republic. As Tom says, this is not a single blogger -- this is an entire on-line conservative community. I'm fairly certain it predates the entire concept of bloging.

[Squidley]

1. Freepers are a fringe element of the right.
2. Giuliani is a gay-marriage supporting, pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien--Republican? What's more, his personal life is about as moral as Slick Willie's. No wonder many Republicans are against him.
3. Sexual morality is part and parcel of Western civilization. If Texans are in favor of it, good!
4. We live in an age where debate is dead, and all that matters is hewing the party line. This is a hallmark of leftism; it's a shame that even "conservatives" have been infected by this intolerance of ideas outside of the strictly defined circle.

[Squidley]

Broken Gnome,

Please get your stereotypes straight: blacks steal, yes, but it's Mexicans who are lazy. These sterotypes form the basis for a certain joke, but this blog is too classy for such raunch.

[Steve]

So, If you believe that FreeRepublic speaks for all Conservatives/Republicans, do you likewise believe that the lunatics at Democratic Underground speak for all Liberals/Democrats?

[Tom]

Well, Steve, I've looked pretty carefully and I don't think I said that FreeRepublic speaks for all Republicans. In fact, one of my recurring themes here at F/A is that the Republican Party in the era of George W. Bush has departed many, if not most, traditional Republicans in favor of a radical agenda of big government conservatism.

I used the FreeRepublic anecdote as an example of the urge of contemporary Republicans to use centralized power to crush that of which they disapprove. This is called "authoritariansim," and the urge stretches far and wide across today's Republican Party.

That said, in answer to your question: No, I do not believe that the lunatics at Democratic Underground speak for all Democrats, any more than the FreeRepublicans speak for all Republicans. I would not dismiss the Democratic Underground as irrelevant, however, as it represents a particular type of Democrat. If the Democratic Underground were to take over the party the way the radical right has taken over the Republican Party, I would find them more troubling than I do. But since they're fairly marginalized, I do my best to ignore them.

[Steve]

So, if FreeRepublic doesn't speak for all republicans, please explain how the comments posted there somehow vindicated your previous (and current) comments about the Republican Party as a whole.

Oh and by the way, I've been banned from the Democratic Underground forums... should I start posting about how authoritarian the democrats are based on that fact?

[Pursuit]

Sorry I missed the thread, but Steve seems to have handled things well. I'd only add that I seem to recall that we last left your "Republicans are Authoritarians" thread with you claiming a certain tongue in cheek attitude towards your original post. Now you're claiming vindication.

Which is it Tom, did you mean it or not?

[Scott]

Tom, if I'm not mistaken, you're from Kentucky, a state which probably has similar obscenity laws on the books. Shall I tar you with a brush that you had no hand in wielding? Or shall I search the web for Kentucky dildo stories?

Or shall I point out that the decidedly non-authoritarian Tom would have you believe that citizens votes be illegitimated because he believes dildo laws are...what? Not good? Not the will of the people? Silly and worthy of fun-making? Whatever. I bet that law has been on the books longer than I've been alive. But there's really no way to fact-check what you're saying, since there are no links in the article and there are no citations of the specific statute upon which one could base a search.

Really, I'd like to know how you know that the law "was written by a Republican legislator, passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican governor". Do you have more information you could share with us dummies? Because, being a Texan and somewhat familiar with my state's politics, my bet (a small one - $50) is that it was written back during the days of ante-bellum Democrats running every facet of Texas politics. I'll Paypal you if you can produce any evidence that it was "was written by a Republican legislator, passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican governor." Even if you get to two of three, I'll pay you.

[Scott]

Just checking here, too -- three stories on Google News, all the same verbiage, none with a single statute cited. Eagerly awaiting your elucidation on all the mean Republicans who wrote, passed, and signed the law, since I've got no way to find it.

[Tom]

I owe Scott an apology. But let me be belligerent first: I didn't attempt to "smear" you with the irrational action of other Texas Republicans. I was pointing out an irony of proximity, that the tendency I was talking about is happening right next door.

Which is where I start apologizing. The ridiculous prosecution is happening right next door, but the law I thought I was writing about -- which I had written about before -- is happening in South Carolina, not Texas. It makes advertising sex toys a crime. That's unforgivably sloppy, a quick, glib and literally thoughtless mistake.

I believe my larger point to be valid, however. The District Attorney of Lubbock County, who is responsible for bringing the case against vibrator sales by reviving a law that is largely unused, is Matthew Powell, a Republican who apparently believes the management of people's sex lives to be within the purview of local government.

[Scott]

No apology needed. But again, let's look at this as citizens. Powell was elected to prosecute the laws on the books. That's a law on the books, and an arrest was made, and a case was put together based on it. Now, I don't like that - primarily seems to be either a waste of time or a punitive payback of some sorts (probably the former, knowing cops and prosecutors.)

It's no matter to me, though, since I don't live in Lubbock ("next door" being six hours away if I hoof it hard.) It should really be no matter to you, except as a sniggering joky post, which the story richly deserves.

Because, after all, as a non-authoritarian, you should have no interest in forcing your views on Lubbockians, just as I truly have no interest in forcing my views on Lousvillians. Maybe I think yall should probably clean up that cess-pool of the Kentucky Derby infield, but there's simply zero authoritarian impulse, on my part as a conservative, to demand from San Antonio that it be shut down immediately. That is, by rights and by law, your choice.

As a digression, this is the problem with electing lawmakers. They inevitably make laws, 75% of which we don't need or want, but they feel like they have to do it. We should call them custodians or something.