I asked for a few reasons why. His first answer: "I don't support extremists".
Then I asked why he thought that the candidate was extreme.
For the same reason that nearly everyone else who's not a social conservative does.
Since when has social conservatism become a strain of extremism?
This line of argument reminds me of Saul Alinksy's "Rule for Radicals" shame-baiting. The candidate whom I supported, whom he opposed, defined marriage between one man and one woman. He also believed in the sanctity of life, the essence of the United States Constitution, and the strength of state sovereignty ahead of federal preeminence.
This liberal rebuttal, that anyone leaning right socially conservative is intolerant or extreme, is false. Regarding marriage, the institution is defined between one man and one woman. This reality relies on more than tradition mores, a recognition of the truth, followed by the hard evidence from history and biology that homosexual conduct diminishes life, wealth, and worth. The fact that pro-family advocates have abandoned these salient (yet controversial) remarks does not excuse judges from supporting the lifestyle.
|Debate is necessary, along with civility|
The extremism today is not from those who defend life, marriage, the importance of property, the integration of families, the primacy of choice over mandates, and the necessity of self-protection. The extreme arguments come from those who believe that the consensus of liberal, amoral academics can rewrite the trends which define life and cause communities to thrive. Extremism emanates from those who restructure tolerance to mean "I am right, and you must accept me, or else!"
Returning to my brief dialogue, I explained that I was not interested in starting a fight, but I just wanted answers. He then responded:
I reject anyone who can't discuss immigration without sounding racist or mean. It's our fault the borders haven't been secure.
I found this statement particularly offensive. Am I responsible for the lack of border security? Should public institutions shoulder the brunt of the costs, whether in crime, health concerns or economic demand, because of rampant illegal immigration?
Since when did debating an issue lead to charges of "racism"? And what does "sounding mean" have to do with the soundness or salience of an argument?
It is not the fault of We the People that the border is not secure. Taxpayers should not have to fund public benefits for immigrants, period. The United States federal government should not be subsidizing or supporting illegal immigrants, either.
The fact that borders security has been lax, that crime rates are raising, that state legislatures have enabled mass illegal immigration, is not the fault of "We". In 2014, the voters of liberal Oregon rejected two-to-one drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The necessary push against illegal immigration is not a partisan issue, but a national concern in which Democrats and Republicans share blame and responsibility. Legal immigration and border enforcement falls into the category of social conservatism, to some. The argument that defending borders, life, and marriage is an extreme argument is in itself an extreme reproach, and no one should have to suffer it.
As I pondered my former candidate’s comments, the more I realize that much social debate has devolved into shaming the other side, rather than responding with truth, evidence, and comparison of other options.
Social conservatives should not lie down for these unfounded attacks, but rebut the strain of extremism with the truth. One other point: as I was debating briefly these concerns, the gentleman tried to turn away this argument with “I don’t want to debate this. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.”
That appeal to non-debate is not an answer. The liberal agenda to up-end marriage, terminate life as a matter of inconvenience, or ignore the Constitution in the name of elitist self-esteem cannot be ignored, nor tolerated.