Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
December 2014
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 * * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Massachusetts Conservatives Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly

Mass Video Blogs Catch of the Day Video

Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Hester Prynne
Mass Marrier

Non-Partisan Massachusetts Blogs
Preti Minahan
Mass Politics Profs

Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Worcester Herald

Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy
WGBH.org's "The Scrum"
WGBH's Adam Reilly
WGBH's "Beat The Press">
WGBH's "Greater Boston">
David Bernstein at Boston Magazine
NECN's "Broadside: with Jim Braude"

National
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State





Fiscal + Social - Radical = Bio Conservative

by: John Howard

Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 17:07:09 PM EST


I think that equation is the way to create a conservative majority and restore the Republican party. Bio-conservatism merges the sane, moderate parts of fiscal conservativism and social conservatism and has no use for the radical extreme elements that drive most Americans away.

Unless you are a Transhumanist, you are already a Bio-Conservative, so the vast majority of people already are in this tent.

Bio-conservatives oppose genetic engineering of children, because it would grow government entitlements, be super expensive, and violate our liberty and human dignity. And we believe in global warming and environmentalism, we believe in a compassionate safety net and public health and services and good moral education. We generally don't like abortion and IVF but we also support choice and privacy.  We oppose same-sex procreation and same-sex marriage but we don't judge gay people and we support Civil Unions that give all the other rights and security of marriage for families. We support human equality and human dignity and oppose commodification of people...

That's just a rambling start of the conversation. I think a Bio-Conservative Republican Party is true to the original spirit of the GOP and would become the home of a large majority of the nation, because everyone but Libertarian Transhumanists is Bio-Conservative.

John Howard :: Fiscal + Social - Radical = Bio Conservative
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

What does being socially conservative *really* mean? (0.00 / 0)
I'm having trouble understanding what being socially conservative really means to most Republicans. Your definition continues confuses me and I'd venture it'd confuse/worry most people who might want to agree with it.

Oppose genetic engineering of children. Okay, that sounds bad, but what would dems allow that you wouldn't? Phrasing it like that is overly vague. If there are policies we're against, why not just state them?

Don't like abortion, but support choice and privacy. So what's the position here? We'll complain about abortions, but not do anything about it? Same for same-sex issues.

IMO, the problem with conservatives is that most of the rhetoric seems to be just that, which plays well to a shrinking base but just creates anxiety/concern among those who might agree because they can't tell what we're actually saying.

I'd simplify the message and draw clear lines.


Answers (0.00 / 0)
I'm having trouble understanding what being socially conservative really means to most Republicans. Your definition continues confuses me and I'd venture it'd confuse/worry most people who might want to agree with it.

I didn't define what "socially conservative" means in my diary, I described a few things that Bio-Conservatives tend to believe. Interestingly, the wikipedia entry on Social Conservatism includes all of the positions of a Bio-Conservative, but I think there are some deviations, in that bio-conservatives are more concerned with biotechnology and less with society (how's that for stating the obvious).

What is it you think "confuses/worries most people" in my definition of Bio-Conservative?

Okay, that sounds bad, but what would dems allow that you wouldn't?

The Dems would allow same-sex procreation and genetic engineering and transgender reproduction. As long as they stay controlled by the Libertarian Transhumanists and LGBT extremists in their party, they would oppose a law that creating a distinction in rights for same-sex couples by limiting reproduction to a man and woman using their own genes. They would favor public funding of abortions and same-sex procreation and sex change operations.

So what's the position here? We'll complain about abortions, but not do anything about it? Same for same-sex issues.

Basically we'll just let go the "no exceptions" and "life beings at fertilization" positions, and go back to the incremental changes to promote a culture of life, and not get ahead of ourselves by pushing a human life amendment.

With same-sex issues, we'll preserve marriage as a man and a woman with the right and approval to conceive offspring together with their own genes, but be tolerant and respectful of gay people and support Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" with federal recognition.

I'm trying to be straightforward and clear, there is nothing hidden that I am "actually saying."


[ Parent ]
clarification (0.00 / 0)
I shouldn't have said that bioconservatives were less concerned with society than social conservatives, indeed it's the other way around I think. Most of our concerns are for how biotechnology will affect society and future people as a whole, we aren't concerned as concerned with individual one-at-a-time effects as we are with the cumulative effects. What I should have said is that social conservatives are often more concerned with the individuals involved, a poor person that needs care and comfort and spiritual guidance, the local community, whereas bioconservatives might be less helpful to local soup kitchens and unconcerned with anyone's spiritual well-being while we think about the harmful effects of bio-technology. Those are good things about social conservatism that are absent from bioconservatism, but those are not the "extreme" and "radical" things I was referring to in the title. The extreme things about social conservatism that are unpopular are religious judgmentalism and intolerance and absolutism on opposition to civil unions and abortion with no exceptions to rape. Those aren't bioconservative opinions, one can be a bioconservative while still supporting civil unions and emergency contraception and abortion in the event of rape and incest (and one can still be a social conservative too, though many seem to believe that they have to be absolutists to be social conservatives, I say that's not true.)

[ Parent ]



Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox