Wednesday, May 13, 2009

To Boldly Go?

By: Laura Adelmann

What true sci-fi geek can resist a good Star Trek metaphor? Not this geek. I've got two. First, I was eavesdropping the other day at lunch and some folks were discussing the new Star Trek movie. This will include major spoilers, so beware! They commented that the movie's alteration of the original Star Trek timeline, on which all the series have been based, may upset the traditional Star Trek fans. My thoughts turned to politics. How's that for a one track mind? I thought that the new Star Trek movie represents more moderate Republicans. Traditional old school Star Trek is the hardcore right Republicans. Maybe the traditionalists will hate the new Trek for selling out or watering down the story line, just as some Republicans dislike the more inclusive moderate view that is moving through the Republican Party and wish to reject those who support it. But, new Star Trek seems to appeal to non-Trek fans just as a moderate focus for the Republican party would be more likely to attract Independents. Would traditional Trekkies rather have no new Star Trek movies because they want to stay true to the original series, or would they rather keep the story alive with a modern twist? Would traditional Republicans rather see the party lose national elections rather than welcome those who sit a little closer to the center than to the right?

The second metaphor is borrowed. I certainly think the comparison of Obama to Spock and Bush to Kirk as accurate. There's a reason that Spock was always better as a First Officer or Ambassador and when it came to a crisis, he turned things over to Kirk.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service


Swilliams said...

Maybe you should title your post:

"Whine on the Centerline"
"Whinefest in Middletown"

You seem to be the (yawn) teeny boring voice of the stand-for-nothing-but-giving-in Moderates. Anything else in your quiver?

I think your underlying assumption that the "Republicans" are the traditionalist conservatives that do not want "moderates" in their party is simply wrong. The Republican Party is the Moderate Party - that's why they lost with McCain and continue to lose with centerline straddlers. The constituency, and the silent majority, are right of center, they stand for American values which are as good today as they were 20 years ago or 50 years ago. The Dems have fallen to the kook Left and are comprised of the elitists who want socialism for the masses not themselves, the LGBT radicals and promoters of deviance as the new norm, those who love genocide in all its manifestations, the immoral and the amoral, the brain dead, and the moochers and looters.

The country is still largely Judeo-Christian and love the core social institutions. They have no desire to compromise ad infinitum, or abandon God, marriage, family, decency, charity, justice, patriotism, borders, security, small government, free markets, prosperity, and so on.

The only issue is where do real Americans, who now call themselves Conservative, go for political representation? The Republican Party has rejected them yet continues to solicit them for financial support.

Republicans will continue to lose as long as they extend their hand across the aisle. Bush did it repeatedly and the barbarian hordes never relented in their assaults on him, which continue today.

The party politicians are the Republicans, they are spineless and meet your criteria. Be happy, stop whining. You already have what you seek.

It's the everyday American people that are conservative in search of good principled politicians who will not be seduced by DC to truly represent them.

Obama is Spock?? Ugh - you ruined the movie for me.

Laura Adelmann said...

When I speak of moderate, I refer to my personal view of moderate, which is on social issues. Not that I don't believe that abortion is wrong, but I think the focus of the party should be small government, individual liberty and free markets. I think that's why Republicans are losing elections. They sold out on that issue and contributed to bloated government. They didn't win or lose on the gay marriage issue. They lost because they lost credibility on economic issues. When I speak of moderate, I mean Republicans should not have a litmus test on social issues and should embrace the Libertarians looking for someone to be their voice.

Swilliams said...

I understand that position Laura, I hear it all the time and once embraced it. But if you really research the social issues, listen carefully to other perspectives, and contemplate them in all their layers, you may have an epiphany.

If killing a baby in the womb is a personal choice (now an alleged constitutional right to privacy) and we don't want the government telling us what to do with our kids then why not kill the little buggers out of the womb when they become a nuisance and get in the way of our having what we want. After all it is our personal business and does not concern the state. The world is now one of relativism, is it not? Don't be judgmental, tolerate me and all my aberrations, and just plain bad behavior. If the core principle is "taking of innocent life is wrong" then the supporters of that core principle make it a plank in their platform.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage" - marriage is marriage - a core social institution for thousands of years of human existence. It is a social contract in the civil setting and it is a sacrament in the religious setting. Conceding the meaning of terms is a tool of the Left, practiced by moderates, along with incrementalism. It has marched along steadily for the past 40 years. The law, media, and education systems have been dominated by the Left's agenda for at least 40 years and the result is now we have young people/adults who lack a moral core, especially if they are the product of the government schools and parents who did not want to impose limits. Social order demands limits or we have chaos.

Conservatives share a core belief of decency. That distinguishes us from Liberals and Libertarians. The Republican Party must distinguish itself from Democrats and Libertarians and bring back together the mainstream of Americans who will support it and return the late, great USA to that "shining city" of small government, low taxes and general prosperity, marriage once again the core unit of a healthy society, and a restoration of the inalienable right to life. I do not want to age in a country that will have a committee, (or some lazy, bull-headed black robe), determine if I should be allowed to live or euthanized. I do not want to live in a country that denies people of faith their conscience rights. I don't want to live in a country where a pre-born baby with the wrong gender or chromosome is routinely murdered as the "standard of care."

You already have Libertarians and they have their own political party. Leave mine alone while we try to get back to our core values, find candidates who embrace those values, and restore America to its greatness.

Swilliams said...

Gallup Poll released on 5/15/09 shows 51% of American are pro-life. California voters chose the one man - one woman historical definition of marriage as law in California. Perhaps Repubs seeking office might want to consider supporting those wascally social issues.

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.