What is your ideal demographic coalition?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The working class, Jews, and Catholics regardless of race.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All Protestant, all the time.

Would you let Brian McLaren into your coalition before Peter Kreeft?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All Protestant, all the time.

Would you let Brian McLaren into your coalition before Peter Kreeft?

Almost certainly, yes, upon a Google search of the two.

Really? Huh.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

a hand up instead of a handout.

Whenever I hear this line I always think enviously about how cute and clever it must sound to people who've never gone to bed hungry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

Okay.

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way?

Well, in that it's a party that by design includes both a socon wing and a bobo wing and seeks to play their interests and values off against each other in creative tension. I don't understand why I need to reiterate/reword this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very right. For 'keep' read 'make'.

For reference, my ideas about education policy do not start and stop at 'how can fantasy-me distinguish myself from Patrick Brown?' By any means. I'm familiar enough with the experience of Japan to know good and well that 'teaching to the test', rote fact regurgitation, constant evaluation on top-down, apodictic criteria, et cetera are not morally responsible ways to teach.

The allusion here, as with the references to Patrick Brown, is to the ongoing donnybrook over the sex education curriculum in Ontario. I'm obviously not a sex education specialist, nor would I like to become one, but I think what I would do in general would be to have a panel including people of varying moral and religious views draw up a curriculum to present a gender-neutral case for abstinence until adult commitment if at all possible and scrupulous monogamy* and contraceptive use if not, and then mandate that this material be taught by actual public school teachers rather than the creepy outside specialists to whom both liberal and conservative school districts are liable to farm things out. The goal is to balance moral principles with practical harm reduction, without reference to any specific religious tenets but also without the pretense that we live, can live, or should live in a completely value-neutral society. No, I don't particularly care to hear your opinion of this course of action.

*Just as DC's people can suck it on same-sex marriage, the polyamory crowd can suck it on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anything I've said in this thread indicate that I think everyone does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I at any point express a specific interest in 'the majority of the LGBT community'? I expressly said that my goal is to establish a political consensus on LGBT issues such that LGBT people feel free to vote on other things if they so desire. If the majority of the LGBT community is on board for experimental, interventionist, redistributionist political economy, great! If not, it's, you know, whatever; elements of my coalition (and not only the bobos!) are in there specifically so it won't militate against the LGBT community. And plenty of LGBT people are quite religious.

I'm not sure what it is that makes my religiosity 'bizarre'; care to enlighten me?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

Okay.

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way?

Well, in that it's a party that by design includes both a socon wing and a bobo wing and seeks to play their interests and values off against each other in creative tension. I don't understand why I need to reiterate/reword this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very right. For 'keep' read 'make'.

For reference, my ideas about education policy do not start and stop at 'how can fantasy-me distinguish myself from Patrick Brown?' By any means. I'm familiar enough with the experience of Japan to know good and well that 'teaching to the test', rote fact regurgitation, constant evaluation on top-down, apodictic criteria, et cetera are not morally responsible ways to teach.

The allusion here, as with the references to Patrick Brown, is to the ongoing donnybrook over the sex education curriculum in Ontario. I'm obviously not a sex education specialist, nor would I like to become one, but I think what I would do in general would be to have a panel including people of varying moral and religious views draw up a curriculum to present a gender-neutral case for abstinence until adult commitment if at all possible and scrupulous monogamy* and contraceptive use if not, and then mandate that this material be taught by actual public school teachers rather than the creepy outside specialists to whom both liberal and conservative school districts are liable to farm things out. The goal is to balance moral principles with practical harm reduction, without reference to any specific religious tenets but also without the pretense that we live, can live, or should live in a completely value-neutral society. No, I don't particularly care to hear your opinion of this course of action.

*Just as DC's people can suck it on same-sex marriage, the polyamory crowd can suck it on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anything I've said in this thread indicate that I think everyone does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I at any point express a specific interest in 'the majority of the LGBT community'? I expressly said that my goal is to establish a political consensus on LGBT issues such that LGBT people feel free to vote on other things if they so desire. If the majority of the LGBT community is on board for experimental, interventionist, redistributionist political economy, great! If not, it's, you know, whatever; elements of my coalition (and not only the bobos!) are in there specifically so it won't militate against the LGBT community. And plenty of LGBT people are quite religious.

I'm not sure what it is that makes my religiosity 'bizarre'; care to enlighten me?

By bizarre I meant nonstandard.

And I honestly don't care if you want to hear what I have to say. Education shouldn't be about teaching your personal viewpoint, especially not sex education. School is not a place for social brainwashing, and teaching sex ed  by pushing abstinence  (that is the thing you teach as the ideal, teaching how the pill works doesn't negate that) and "polyamory is bad" because of your own personal opinion on it.

Okay, but considering that society itself is not value-neutral I hardly think that advancing a very general, public-language version of a slightly-more-restrained sexual ethic is really any more ideologically inflected than is the (itself ideological) project of maintaining the fiction of value-neutrality in the face of a promiscuity-drenched culture industry.

Having multiple sex partners at a young age with a not-fully-developed risk-assessment part of the brain is bad--objectively, instrumentally. That's how you get the clap.