The bystander notices that many of the residents in name only, their fresh scorch-marks throbbing in pain, are knocking on the door of a neighboring blue house – a house that won last month’s Neighborhood Association Award – a sign proclaiming the victory displayed in the front yard.

The slender owner of the blue house is at the doorway, smiling, speaking glibly of the benefits of residing in the blue house and motioning for them to cross the threshold. Dazed by their ordeal and wanting some balm for their burns, some of them walk inside.

“Fire!” The bystander shouts, “Fire!” This makes one of the occupants of the red house uncomfortable. He confronts the bystander. “Stop your shouting,” he says, “It’s making me angry.”

“But your house is catching fire,” says the bystander.

“As far as I know that’s not true; what is really happening some of our occupants are improving our house by making it a brighter shade of red,” replies the red house occupant, “Isn’t it pretty?”

“That brighter redness is a reflection of the flames that are breaking out because some of your fellow occupants are prodding some others with burning sticks,” says the bystander.

“No fair-minded or well-informed person would ever believe such a thing,” mutters the occupant.

“But I can see that the burning stick occupants are depleting your house’s population with all the prodding,” points out the bystander.

“A little prodding never hurt any house,” retorts the red house occupant, “anyway, the residents you see leaving are residents in name only because they are soft on some things some of us find infuriating and a lot of us don’t like that, therefore the residents in name only are bringing this on themselves. If you can’t get really, really angry about certain things, you do not belong in our house. You belong in that irritatingly blue house down the street.

“But your red house never had these rules before. In past days all kinds of residents with all kinds of beliefs were tolerated in your house, as long as they were loyal to the 3 Golden Principles of Governance,” objects the bystander.

“That is beside the point. What is important is to make the house as red as possible,” says the occupant.

“Even if it burns your house down?” questions the bystander.

Producing a burning stick, the occupant says, “I think your rhetoric is exaggerated and overheated, and that isn’t helpful for conversation or analysis. I’m also realizing your policy preferences are highly suspicious.”

The occupant then begins desperately swiping at the bystander with the burning stick, but always missing.

Exhausted, arms weary, finally the occupant pants out, “I have offered the olive branch. It is up to you whether or not you wish to accept it, but I am finished here,” and turns back toward the red house.

I ask the readers to review the writer’s words:

It[grackle’s premise] is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.

To state that my “premise” should not be accepted by any “fair-minded” or “well-informed person” is to imply that I am not fair-minded or well-informed. After all, I obviously accept my own premises.

I think your rhetoric is exaggerated and overheated, and that isn’t helpful for conversation or analysis.

Here are a couple of vague, unspecified accusations. What part of my “rhetoric” is “exaggerated and overheated” and “isn’t helpful”? We do not know since the writer does not see fit to provide a quote.

You believe I am misinterpreting your position. I think your policy preferences are quite clear, and I can’t imagine what I could be misinterpeting.

The writer wrote that I made assertions which I did not make. To my mind that comes under the category of misinterpretation of my comment. The writer refers to my “policy preferences;” but does not specify what he believes these preferences to be. How “clear” is that?

I have tried to clarify where I was perhaps too cryptic, but apparently I haven’t succeeded. You can’t seem to understand my point here, which is not to review the merits of small government (which I endorse) or to make an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues (which I agree is counterproductive).

But I never claimed the writer was against “small government” or that he ever put forth “an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues.” The writer is denying assertions I never made.

You and I are talking at cross purposes.

Another bit of vagueness.

I believe you are in earnest, and I respect and understand your point.

The writer insinuates I am not “fair-minded” or “well-informed.” He accuses me of “exaggerated and overheated” rhetoric without quoting anything I have written. He refers to my “policy preferences” without bothering to specify what believes them to be. He goes on to deny assertions that I never made. But near the end of all this he makes certain to issue a disclaimer about believing in my earnestness, respecting me and understanding me.

Neo would not disapprove of our behavior here.

That’s for Neo to say.

You believe I am misinterpreting your position. I think your policy preferences are quite clear, and I can’t imagine what I could be misinterpeting. I have tried to clarify where I was perhaps too cryptic, but apparently I haven’t succeeded. You can’t seem to understand my point here, which is not to review the merits of small government (which I endorse) or to make an argument in favor of name-calling on moral issues (which I agree is counterproductive).

You and I are talking at cross purposes. I believe you are in earnest, and I respect and understand your point.

Neo would not disapprove of our behavior here.

I don’t think you would be able to find any major Republican candidates who took positions as you describe them. That was not the position of the Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. It was not the position of any US Senate or House nominee, as far as I know.

The writer has misinterpreted my position but I welcome the chance to reiterate some important points:

Social conservatism’s moral aspects(such as the anti-abortion stance) have historically been only a part of the GOP philosophy. Up until and including the Reagan era, the emphasis had been on issues of governance: limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense.

Beginning in the 1990s that changed to what is now the case, a domination of social conservatism and moral issues in the Republican Party, resulting in the de-emphasis of the tried and true issues of governance which were attractive to a wider range of voters. I believe one of the products of this development has been a shrinking percentage of intellectuals who identify themselves as Republicans, including intellectuals such as McArdle and Althouse.

I think that the Republicans have had the support of Althouse and McArdle’s counterparts in the past. But I don’t think the problem is limited only to intellectuals who are finding it difficult to identify with moral issues in place of principles of governance and who perceive they are no longer welcome in the GOP. Relatively moderate politicians have been feeling the heat, too. This situation is signified by the neologism, “RINO,”(Republican in name only) which is used as an epithet and was invented just after the Reagan era.

As a matter of fact I have not claimed any GOP candidate has ever taken a position of wanting to “put women in jail.” The writer appears to be erecting a “straw man” argument, perhaps unknowingly. What I have done is deplore the tendency of the extremes of the social conservative faction to label women who have abortions as “murderers.” Rightly or wrongly, these folks are identified with the GOP.

It is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.

The readers, and perhaps Neo, will please note that the writer implies here that I am not fair-minded or well informed. Before Neo’s post on back and forth bickering I might have responded in kind but will instead settle for a request that the writer refrain from the tactic of ad hominem attack on those who do not agree with his views.

I think also the writer may have made a mistake in not actually looking up the 2008 GOP Platform, part of which I quote below:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Such an amendment would make it the law of the land that abortion would be illegal and the decision in Roe vs. Wade by the SCOTUS which is so hated by the social conservatives would be rendered legally irrelevant. Any woman having an abortion could be put on trial and if found guilty would indeed most likely be put in jail.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

The “trade” I meant was that the Republicans would be able to woo any significant number of intellectuals by jettisoning the social conservatives. I don’t think that’s on, partly because the GOP would never be able to distance itself far enough from the social conservatives to satisfy the critics who treat social issues as a litmus test.

Well, I think the GOP better “woo” somebody before the next Presidential election. I should not need to remind the writer that the Republicans lost the last election, putting a majority of Democrats into both Houses of Congress and a Democrat into the Whitehouse. I DO agree that loosening the hold of the social conservative wing, with its mania for moral issues, from control of the Republican Party could be difficult. But it’s not “social” issues that I believe are the litmus for those “critics” that the writer does not want to bother to “woo.” It’s “moral” issues.

We would hear twenty years of accusations about cryptic appeals to the social conservatives.

Here again I am at a loss on what the writer means with the above sentence. “ … cryptic appeals to the social conservatives … “?

I was asking whether you think social issues such as abortion and gay marriage trump economic (fiscal and regulatory) and foreign policy issues for these persuadable intellectuals.

What I think is that the GOP needs to change its social conservative-driven emphasis on moral issues to a promotion of the proven and attractive principles of limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense – as was the case in more successful times, the Reagan era and before.

I think that if these issues don’t determine the support of these valuable “middle” intellectuals, we should be going on offense, as opposed to figure out how to appease them on particular hot-button issues.

I’m a bit puzzled by the meaning of the above but I’ll take a stab at addressing it. I think there are many factors that could appeal to potential recruits to the GOP. One would be to stop calling women who have had abortions, “murderers.”

And it’s not, as the writer seems to assert(if I understand him correctly), those lost constituencies I have been wanting the GOP to regain that have demanded to be appeased. No, quite the opposite; instead it has been the social conservatives who have been wanting the GOP to be purged of the evil RINOS – with a “Don’t let the door hit you in your pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-shamnesty butts on the way out,” righteously shouted at them as they leave.

The premise of your argument was about the GOP wanting to do things (e.g. put women in jail) that are contrary to fact, as far I know. I don’t think you would be able to find any major Republican candidates who took positions as you describe them. That was not the position of the Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. It was not the position of any US Senate or House nominee, as far as I know. It is not in the party platform. That premise I do not accept, and no fair-minded and well-informed person should.

The “trade” I meant was that the Republicans would be able to woo any significant number of intellectuals by jettisoning the social conservatives. I don’t think that’s on, partly because the GOP would never be able to distance itself far enough from the social conservatives to satisfy the critics who treat social issues as a litmus test. We would hear twenty years of accusations about cryptic appeals to the social conservatives.

I was asking whether you think social issues such as abortion and gay marriage trump economic (fiscal and regulatory) and foreign policy issues for these persuadable intellectuals.

I think that if these issues don’t determine the support of these valuable “middle” intellectuals, we should be going on offense, as opposed to figure out how to appease them on particular hot-button issues.

Oblio, thanks for the response but I defined what I meant by “intellectual,” and all the folks I mentioned met the definition. Look them up and see for yourself. Note their education levels and other background information. A pundit can also be an intellectual, you know. What is your definition of “intellectual?”

As it is, I can’t accept the premise of your argument.

I can’t respond very well to this since you don’t offer just what you think my premise is.

You need to provide some evidence of GOP politicians or party officials who want to put women in jail for having an abortion or dictate who gets married to whom.

You may feel strongly about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but you don’t get to make things up.

I sincerely do not believe I am making anything up. And I’m not promoting or campaigning against either issue in these comments; thus the strength of my personal convictions on these 2 issues are not relevant to my points. I am merely trying to propose a strategy for beating Obama. For instance, many Americans have friends and/or relatives who have had abortions. Calling them murderers, as many social conservatives do, in my opinion doesn’t make those folks want to vote GOP. What is usually done to murderers is to put them in jail. If you call someone a murderer it seems to me that they might feel threatened. That’s my opinion.

Most social conservatives I’ve seen offer a viewpoint on the issue want Roe vs. Wade repealed. What do you think would happen if that unlikely event ever came about?

Wikipedia says, “A majority of the GOP’s national and state candidates are pro-life and oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds …” So you have a group of folks who are opposed to a certain behavior … this same group creates the law of the land … I ask you to use your imagination to complete the syllogism. Frankly, researching just which of these politicians favor relatively draconian measures and which are relatively soft on the issue is just too damned much work for a comment – perhaps if I were writing a book …

As for gay marriage, I happen to know 2 gay couples who have stable, long-time relationships and who except for the issue of gay marriage, are otherwise quite conservative in many of their viewpoints. I am also acquainted with 3 or 4 unattached gay persons. As a group they seem especially troubled by Progressive economic and some social policies(such as welfare and healthcare) but I suspect they all voted for Obama. I know for sure the couples would like to be able to marry. However, the Republican platform in the last election was firmly against gay marriage, even calling for a constitutional amendment to make it against the law. I’m not claiming that gay folk are mostly conservative or even centrist – if I had to guess I would say it is on the order of 60/40, the majority on the liberal side, but the gay vote is 10% of the voters, a sizeable bloc. A little tolerance might go a long way.

I think you are right that the social conservative wing of the GOP trips the taboos of intellectuals that we discuss above. You might say that this is natural and inevitable. You might personally agree that such intellectuals are right to be turned off.

No, I do not agree that “such intellectuals are ‘right’ to be turned off.” I was appalled to learn that Althouse and McArdle voted for Obama. It is true that I think many intellectuals who are not avowed Progressives(like Althouse and McArdle) but who voted for Obama anyway might again be attracted to the GOP slate if the GOP would start campaigning on the tried and true issues of governance instead of focusing on issues of morality. I think McArdle and Althouse’s counterparts voted GOP in the Reagan era and before. What do you think drove them away?

I really don’t think they care that the Republican tent shelters social conservatives; they would certainly be aware that the GOP has welcomed social conservatives throughout the modern era – at least since the early 1900s – I DO, however, believe that the fact that social conservatism seems to dictate Republican policy these days has driven many away. I believe they no longer feel welcome in the GOP. The ubiquitous neologism, “RINO,” which was coined fairly recently(1994) and which we have all seen used in reference to Republicans such as McCain, Romney, Graham, Snowe and Chafee says it all.

I think you are stuck arguing for a trade that isn’t going to get made.

Too vague to respond to.

I also think that you are assuming or believe that these social issues dominate what you describe as issues of governance for this particular group of intellectuals.

“… social issues dominate … issues of governance …”? I’m sorry but I can’t get your meaning here.

You need to provide some evidence of GOP politicians or party officials who want to put women in jail for having an abortion or dictate who gets married to whom. As it is, I can’t accept the premise of your argument. You may feel strongly about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but you don’t get to make things up.

I think you are right that the social conservative wing of the GOP trips the taboos of intellectuals that we discuss above. You might say that this is natural and inevitable. You might personally agree that such intellectuals are right to be turned off.

I think you are stuck arguing for a trade that isn’t going to get made. I also think that you are assuming or believe that these social issues dominate what you describe as issues of governance for this particular group of intellectuals.

First let’s define an intellectual: My definition would be anyone(usually, but not always, with an advanced degree) who is immersed in the world of ideas. As a group they would be referred to as the intelligentsia.

I would divide the intelligentsia into 3 factions:

There are those who are openly and obviously in the Obama camp, Progressives like Kristof, Krugman and Andrew Sullivan(even though Sullivan calls himself a libertarian conservative). I believe they can be counted on to defend Obama to the bitter end. Their credibility, self images and careers are invested in the same political philosophy as they believe Obama possesses – basically they see Obama’s policies as mirrors of their own political philosophies. Useful idiots.

There are also intellectuals who are flatly against Obama. Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer come to mind. O the brilliance of Kristol and the hammer of the Kraut! I believe this group to be the smaller of the three.

The third group are those who profess to be against most of what Obama represents but who for one silly ostensible reason or the other promote Obama – the Althouses and the McArdles. I would say this group is in the middle in size of the three. But if they could be won over and combined with the second group it would represent a sizable opposition to Obama, perhaps even a majority of the intelligentsia.

Others have commented on this blog that the third group was turned off from McCain/Palin and the GOP in general because:

… they[Althouse and McArdle] think there are too many yahoos who are against abortion and gay marriage, and they can’t bring themselves to associate with yahoos. They never say that, they don’t even think it consciously, and they would certainly deny it.

I think this is certainly an astute observation but I believe it is only partially true. I believe what turns off many intellectuals to the GOP is the relatively recent emphasis on issues of morality. Any intellectual would be aware that the Republican Party has in modern times attracted and encompassed folks with what is known today as a social conservative viewpoint. However, it is only after the Reagan era that issues of morality have been allowed to dominate over issues of governance in the GOP.

The belief that political parties should primarily be about governing, NOT about dictating who gets married to who or wanting to put women in jail for having an abortion or demanding a fairly strict social conservative orientation from candidates, may be the problem the third group has with the Republican Party.

If the focus and energy of the GOP were switched to limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense I think this third group would find it easier to vote for the GOP slate the next time around. But these days they are told, in effect, to “go back to the liberals,” just as I have been on this blog. Is it any wonder that they have a hard time voting for the GOP?

I guess I am wondering whether the intellectual class has any values deeper than its PC shibboleths, and proposing that that do.

The intellectuals are proud of being smart. The greatest fear they have is to be shown up as lacking intellect and judgment. If they aren’t smart, they are humiliated. The taboos (racism, puritanism, and homophobia) are associated with the ignorant, i.e. conservatives.

We need to induce cognitive dissonance within the intellectual tribe. We do that with facts, logic, and a demand for transparency and intellectual accountability.