A Moderate's Platform - Part 2

As I said in my previous post, I agree with much of what Michael says. His stance on eleven issues is actually right of the majority of conservatives, I believe. However, there are four issues with which I have significant disagreement, and if this is what Moderates believe, conservatives need to get out the message much better than they have been.

"7. Gays. Homosexuals do not threaten my marriage. Heterosexual marriages have their own troubles, but the fate of conventional marriages has nothing to do with whether same sex couples can marry one another or partake in a civil union. No guy now married to a woman is waiting in the wings for a court decision trying to decide whether to ditch his spouse and hook up with a man. As we seek to find some accommodation for same sex couples, we need to end that false argument."  I have one word for Michael here: McGreevey. Responsible for destroying his career and his marriage through homosexual activity, the first thing the former governor did upon hearing that the New Jersey Supreme Court was going to rule on the Gay Marriage issue was to state his desire to marry his lover. On a personal level, it may not seem to be a problem, and true, it does not effect my marriage, just as it does not effect Michael's. However, on a cultural level, history shows that the acceptance of alternative lifestyles as normal precedes, and perhaps signals, the imminent downfall of that culture. I like my culture the way it is, and, personally, I don't want the honorable state of matrimony between a man and woman degraded, in my eyes, by adding other versions. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, everything will be right, nothing will be wrong, and our culture will be lost.

"8. Abortion. I want to be registered in a party that has room in its tent for pro-life and pro-choice views. And Plan B should be sold over the counter to individuals 18 and over. And I surely don't want politicians determining my end of life plan."  Frankly, I expected better from Michael on this one, as logic alone dictates a different viewpoint. However, it is clear from the tone of both the text above and his discussions about this subject on the air, that he has an emotional attachment to the subject that he hasn't divorced from his perspective. That's the problem with the whole abortion rights issue: we as a nation are so emotionally charged on this point, that we can't look at it objectively. Consider, the abortion rights movement has always presented the issue as a "Woman's Right to Choose". However, they stop there, and any attempt to logically reason through the choices inherent to the issue are resoundingly drowned out with cat calls of "Keep your laws off my body". Here's my view, removing religion from the argument, and conceding the point that science cannot pinpoint the beginning of life in the womb. This means that there quite possibly may be no problem whatsoever with an abortion at any time during pregnancy. However, the probability of that is only 50%, meaning that there is an equal chance that abortion, at any time in a pregnancy, kills a human being. While I may offend people on the other side, I can't, in good conscience, condone a position that has a fifty/fifty chance of being murder.

"9. Embryonic Stem Cells Research. Do it. Fund it. Pardon my callous nature, but that which exists in a Petri dish is undeserving of the full rights that are afforded a viable fetus."  This is another one that I expected a more intellectual perspective from Michael. God forbid that I write 'intelligent', as I think Michael has me beat in that area hands down. But "Embryo" is the medical term for a baby from conception to the third month. After the third month, we switch terms and call it a fetus. At no time does viability make any difference in which is which - we're talking semantics - unless Michael is deliberately positing the idea that viability is not relevant until after one decides it's appropriate to change the medical term for a baby in the womb at some point in its gestation, and I don't think he is. In other words, left to itself, an embryo sitting in a Petri dish would become a human being if we allowed it to do so. That it would have to be implanted in a womb is a moot point. The fact is, an embryo in a Petri dish is as viable a human as an embryo in a womb. My response on abortion directly relates at this point.

"5. Iraq. We need an end game. And don't call it "cut and run". As a matter of fact, if anything is unpatriotic, it's not affording our soldiers an explanation of how their mission will end. It's time to articulate an exit strategy so as to light a fire under Iraqis and let them know they need to stand on their own two feet sooner than later."  I'm going to give Michael a pass on this one. He's not a military man, he's an attorney that raised his social status by taking a talk radio job. (Had to get that in -- just kidding, Michael.) Still, If he really believes there is no end game, he's wrong. Having been there, I know an exit strategy exists - no war is fought without its generals first preparing such - but it's no business of ours at home, and it's usually not known to the boots on the ground. As a grunt in-country during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, my company didn't know when we would be returning state-side until a week prior to leaving. Whether military or civilian, we neither need nor should know what the exit strategy is, other than a general "We have a list of objectives that must be met before we can bring all the troops home." No attorney in his right mind publishes his closing statement in the middle of the trial. Neither should the administration or military publish its end game strategy in the middle of the war.

In conclusion...
Only four of Michael's fifteen points provide any room for disagreement on my part, but the disagreements are significant, in that, with no disrespect intended, they provide a view of moderation that exposes its emotional ties to the issues. Thinking with the heart is not the way to govern a country, it is the way to assist ones countrymen. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

The great thing about being a conservative, for which anecdotal evidence abounds, is that, notwithstanding the differences of opinion, the Republican Party is inclusive enough to tolerate both of us. Reassuring, isn't it.