A Rejoinder to Smitty: Why we NEED to fight social issues at the national issue

Smitty, the better looking blogger at “The Other McCain” wrote an excellent article today, but I believe that while his premise is correct, he draws the wrong conclusion.  Allow me to explain why I believe this.  First, Smitty wrote an article in which he took issue with a social conservative, Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, who said this: “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.”

Smitty responding to that quote, wrote this:

“Mr. Fischer, sir, we need to split the difference here. While I fully, 100% subscribe to the sanctity of life, and I agree that the symbol “marriage” means exactly what you think it meant, means, and shall mean, from alpha to omega, I don’t think individual social concerns are a proper Federal issue, for the following reason:

“You go beyond the notion of the Constitution protecting you from the Federal government, and instead assert that the Federal government can and should tell you what to do.”

Agreed agreed agreed with what is written in bold, Smitty, well done!  Ok, so what is the problem you ask?  The problem is that while that in bold is the goal, where the battle is raging on social issues is currently at the federal level.

Roe v. Wade was a Federal Court decision whereby the Federal Government “can and did tell us what to do.”  It cannot be undone by the individual states.  It can only be undone by Federal legislators appointing socially conservative– or at least pro states’ rights– jurists and justices to the courts. 

Likewise, there is that lawsuit percolating through the Federal Courts in California whereby David Boies and Ted Olsen are attempting to get the Federal Courts to rule that states can not forbid gays to marry.  In other words, that lawsuit is set to become the Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.  We, The People, want to decide the issue at the state level?  Too bad, the Federal Courts won’t let us.

The reason we need to fight social issues at the Federal level is because that is where the battle is raging.  We don’t currently have the right to battle it at the state level on the issue of abortion, and we won’t have the right to battle gay marriage at the state level, either, if Boies’ law suit is successful.  

If we do not appoint candidates who “believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage” we are ensuring that the battle will be lost before it is started.   It’s like Abe Lincoln ordering Gen. Meade to withdraw from Gettysburg before the first day of battle.  The battlefield is the federal judiciary.  Only the federal legislators can change the make up of the federal court system in order to stop their usurpation of our rights. 

To paraphrase Smitty’s quote:  You THE FEDERAL COURTS go beyond the notion of the Constitution protecting you from the Federal government, and instead assert that the Federal government can and should tell you what to doSO WE HAVE TO STOP THEM BY APPOINTING PRO LIFE AND PRO MARRIAGE LEGISLATORS WHO WILL APPOINT PRO LIFE AND PRO MARRIAGE JUDGES, WHO WILL LEAVE IT UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE.

Please, don’t give in to the usual blather that social cons should shut up and agree with libertarians and fiscal conservatives on fiscal issues, and shut the hell up about social issues.  The fight is raging on social issues at the federal level not because social cons asked for the fight there but because that is where the liberals have taken the fight.  Far from asking Gen. Meade to retreat before the battle is joined, I’m asking him to take the high ground and hold it against all assaults!  Once we return these issues to the states where they belong, then we can agree to part ways with the libertarians and with the fiscal conservatives who do not agree with us on these social issues.

Perhaps a way to keep our fragile coalition of fiscal conservatives together is to ensure our social liberal and libertarian brethren that we do not seek to force our views on them at the federal level, we merely seek to allow those battles to be fought where they belong–at the state level. 

I  have taken this time to gently suggest that Smitty has drawn the wrong conclusion only because we need good men like Smitty on our side.  As Lincoln said of Grant: I can’t spare him, he’s a figher!  As usual, I may be wrong, but I’m never in doubt.

Lt. Gen. Smitty, 1st "The Other McCain Brigade"

4 responses to “A Rejoinder to Smitty: Why we NEED to fight social issues at the national issue

  1. The reason we need to fight social issues at the Federal level is because that is where the battle is raging. We don’t currently have the right to battle it at the state level on the issue of abortion, and we won’t have the right to battle gay marriage at the state level, either, if Boies’ law suit is successful.

    That is totally accurate, and I agree with your bolded prescription as one course of action.
    My concern is that in choosing to engage at the Federal level, we risk justifying and cementing precedent for all manner of intrusions, not just sexual/reproductive. Irrespective of any tactical victory obtained, I fear a strategic Progressive victory.
    That victory is followed by demolition of national sovereignty.
    I’m happy, BTW, if history renders me a crow-eating jackass, but the country continues to steer a dangerous course.

  2. I think we agree but I’m not speaking articulately enough for you to understand what I’m trying to say. I’m saying send fed legislators up there to say “NO, we won’t fight at the fed level, we will send it back to the states to let them decide. And we will appoint fed judges who will take the same approach.”

    Yes, engage them, but don’t take victory at the federal level (as Roe v Wade did) but kick the issues back to the states. Whether we win or lose at the state level is another matter, but at least we will have a chance to fight.

    So our precedent would NOT be that all such battles are fought at the fed level. Instead, we would be fighting to have the battles sent back to the states, where the battles should be fought.

    [arrgggh. bloggers’ fog. can’t make sense.]

  3. “Be it better, be it worse,
    Be ruled by him that has the purse.”
    http://www.fullbooks.com/Rob-Roy-Volume-2-2.html

    We can agree endlessly on sending better people too DC, but I maintain that until the underlying Federal principles that were scuttled in 1913 are resurrected, we haven’t altered the context, and won’t see significantly different results.

    Progressivism, as I titled a post, is “Screw Pluribus: Unum”.

  4. Gentlemen, I admit to being a bit torn.

    First we have a muddled understanding of what marriage is, and what it should be. It should be a union of a man and a woman, sanctified by God – which also makes it as much a religious condition as a civil one. Perhaps this should be resolved at a Federal level, but that could raise a question regarding separation of church and state.

    But at my core, I believe in the principal of “Government closest to the people governs best”. States and local government should be where most authority resides.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s