Hoffman at The College Conservative Misses the Genius of Meghan McCain

Posted on | November 28, 2011 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

And by misses I mean thoroughly rejects (emphasis original):

Moreover, the “brilliant” Meghan McCain — daughter of “Lord of the TARP” John McCain — has taken every opportunity to deride conservative women and social issues.
McCain said, “I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn’t be the issues that define the party.”
Recently, I heard the same rallying cry to hose down “extreme” conservative viewpoints at a conference. The male attendee — one markedly dumbfounded by conservatism at this conservative conference — bemoaned how Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, along with social issues, are “too extreme” for the Republican Party.
The horror, the horror!
The question beckons: Who are these people to chide conservatives for holding their beliefs? Why must political expediency — not principles — be the sole path to winning elections?

Read the whole interesting thing. To answer the fine question, I would say that compromise is tactical and that principles are strategic. When you talk to people who are serious about campaigning, and Stacy has boxed my ears on this point multiple times, you have to understand that if war is The Father of Us All, then politics is the mother.

The more ‘nanny’ the state, the more ‘Crazy Cat Lady’ the outlook. And by that, I mean the more that the simple, common sense virtues of conservativism are punted in favor of wanton emotional appeal.

Consider Chincoteague:

In a new plan to deal with beach erosion and prepare for sea-level rise, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed changes that the mayor, the chamber of commerce and homeowners say would eventually drive away summer tourism and drive down the economy that depends on it.

What would a heavyweight conservative thinker like Maggy Mac say about the genius of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service attacking the Commonwealth of Virginia? (emphasis mine)

“I ask our generation to demand better,” said McCain. “By bringing civility back to politics, we will be bringing back respect, tolerance and goodwill.”
McCain said she holds an “amalgam of beliefs” and believes that breaking out of extreme partisanship is essential for the future of both Republicans and Democrats.
McCain said she believes in both strong national defense and climate change and is “determined to pass marriage equality in this country.”
“I have a cross tattooed on my wrist to remind me of my faith,” McCain said. She doesn’t believe being gay is a sin and noted that “the straight, white male is not the face of America anymore.”

You see Gabby, this notion of starting from any invariant principles and applying those principles to life is all backward. We have to embrace the notion that wise experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service somehow know better, despite the news that ~~anthropogenic global~~climate ~~warming~~change, like the rest of the Progressive project, stands revealed as a giant, steaming crock of. . .oatmeal.

And social issues like drugs and abortion are just another case of Maggie Is Right. We should welcome our new Priests of Baal just as much as we scoff at the notion of ideological purity (read: common sense).

Don’t let this here internet thingy fool you, Gabby. Just because you think you have access to better information does not mean you can reject the ‘wisdom’ of the self-appointed elite. They may be incompetent, Hoffman, but they’re all we’ve got, to hear them tell it. And Progressivism may suck, but time only moves forward, and that means our political ideas cannot look back, even if the ideas we reject were relatively superior to the dog’s breakfast currently before us.

via Gabby on Twitter

Category: Meghan McCain, Progressivism

Comments

17 Responses to “Hoffman at The College Conservative Misses the Genius of Meghan McCain”

richard mcenroe
November 28th, 2011 @ 10:45 am

If this is what Stacy was referring to with “Fish. Barrel.” on Twitter, you’re gonna need a bigger barrel…
Tennwriter
November 28th, 2011 @ 11:11 am

Social issues don’t define the party. Conservatism defines the GOP. This naturally includes the so-called social issues such as the right of baby humans to grow to adulthood, and then laugh hysterically at certain people.
Finrod Felagund
November 28th, 2011 @ 11:33 am

Social issues are critically important to the Republican Party, but they aren’t what is going to win us the 2012 Presidential election– it’s the fiscal issues that will do that. Democrats want to drag us down into a back-and-forth on social issues because they know they have no response to us on fiscal issues that won’t get them run out of town on a rail, electorially-speaking. They’re hoping to split the independents on social issues, neutralizing them, and then using fear to turn out their base to re-elect Obama. We can’t let them do this.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 11:38 am

That’s what’s wrong with the GOP, lip service to conservatism defines it.
Liberal Fail
November 28th, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

One thing is for certain. If Meghan McCain left the Republican Party it would definitely tip the scale.
Liberal Fail
November 28th, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

We can start by kicking out the Frums and McCains and other RINOs.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

You mean the Fish and Wildlife service that faked the data on lynx habitat to try and close off more land? Climategate was simply the iceberg that got too big and expensive to ignore; environazis have been faking data since Silent Spring.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

The World’s Youngest Blogger didn’t wait anything like that long….
Quartermaster
November 28th, 2011 @ 12:52 pm

It’s unfortunate that any Reps that come out of New England and the northeast will be liberals. That won’t make Maggie happy as flyover country isn’t liberal as that region is.

We can easily do with Maggie McCain who is just a callow and ignorant youth. The bad thing for her is she has two parents that will never teach what is right and instead will keep on encouraging sin because her “faith” tells her otherwise.

The Liberal Bible is nothing like what was passed to us by martyrs, and God is anything but politically correct. He really couldn’t care less what we think, he’s still going to hold us to his standard when we stand before him at our final judgment. I truly pity people like McCain as they are in for a very rude shock.
Sound Conservatism, CollegeConservative Launch, and Battle of the Blonds « All-American Girl for the Restoration of Values
November 28th, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

[…] also like to thank Robert Stacy McCain and Smitty of The Other McCain for profiling my piece and our site. I couldn’t be more thrilled! Thank you, gentlemen. (If […]
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

I’m not convinced that the Frums, McCains and Boehners are aren’t the epitome of it means to be Republicans.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

Well it isn’t as if we didn’t already know that we needed to abolish the Fish and Wildlife Service,…….and Megan McCain.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

Here I go getting ready to get abused on here 🙂 I would argue that the respect with which I agree with Ms McCain is this: Many on the conservative side are against bigger government, but they would happily use government to force people with different social views (on gay marriage, for instance) off into the margins. For example, some of the Republican candidates (including, scarily, Ron Paul) would like to see life defined as beginning at conception, which would logically outlaw the vast majority of birth control used in the world. I can’t find a way to be happy about that. Many Americans, I think are largely libertarian in their social views. At least I seem to know a lot of people like that, and include myself among them.
Garym
November 28th, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

Hello, Smitty, are you there? This is funny!
Tennwriter
November 28th, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

Hey, you’re a polite libertarian. You didn’t call conservatives ‘statist theocrats’ or some other term of endearment. We can be polite back.

The Founders were for limited gov’t, but not anarchy. They wanted strength in certain areas. This is a difference between the Founders and the Libertarians.

The OWS have a different social view than you. They think you’re a vicious, racist fatcat who deserves to have his money taken from him. You have a different social view….that this is all complete balderdash. You and they wish to use gov’t to enforce your social view. Theirs is ‘property is theft’ and ‘libertarians are evil sorcerers with no rights’. You wish gov’t to enforce ‘property rights’, and would argue that this is the correct, moral decision.

You would be right. You wish to drive the OWS viewpoints into the margins, or as Reagan said about Communism….the dustheap of history.

The proper libertarian viewpoint is that Life MUST!! be protected. It is inconvenient to allow Nazis and Commies to speak, but free speech MUST!! be protected. Likewise with Life, but only much more so. And you’re not required to be happy about Commies speaking. You’re just required to let them do it.

Most Conservatives are in large part libertarian. JerryPournelle said it well when he said that libertarianism was a vector, not a destination. Most socons are strongly libertarian…to a large but limited degree.

As to lots of Americans….no. Libertarians are influential when they convince and persuade socons. Libertarians need to stop sowing division on morality, and instead focus on helping.
Tennwriter
November 28th, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

Are you saying our pols can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? Because I can BOO HISS on Abortion and No Fault Divorce while also yelling for lowering taxes and deleting the Dept of Education while also supporting a proper Border Fence with Guards while reforming the military to make it less wasteful and even more awesome.

In fact, I’d like to see some monolithic duoavianacide like ending Planned Parenthood’s gifts from the Feds.

What we need is a simple Order of Battle because as Clausewitz supposedly tells us….the simple is hard, and the hard impossible in battle.

Sooo…..Everyone Attack the Dems at every point!

Its so simple even the Libertarians can figure it out.
Anonymous
November 28th, 2011 @ 10:03 pm

I hear you…I have never understood some of the more extreme libertarians. People do institute governments for a reason after all. If there was some way to have an Anarcho-capitalist utopia it would exist already.

My point is perhaps more clear when I state it with less nuance:

I am on the youngish side of conservatism (I’m 32) and by no means a “fatcat” as some at #OWS would call me; I have no love for the #OWS crowd. That movement is a movement of the spoiled and entitled: Upper Middle Class college graduates with nontechnical degrees crying that they want a handout.

What I was trying to point out (in between helping the kids with homework) was that the vast majority of people I know who are near my age and younger, are basically fiscally conservative but socially would call themselves “liberal” simply because they don’t like being preached to. We are mainly non-religious. I think that in many populated areas of the country there are many like us: people not deeply involved in politics, who want the government to spend far less, regulate far less, and get out of our way. For us, however, this includes not telling us what we can put in our bodies, who we may marry, or whether we can use birth control.

I keep really trying to get along with many in “conservative” circles, only to find that they value their socon values (and the ability to legislate them into the lives of others) above finding common ground with the more libertarian leaning younger generations. IMHO