If you missed my recent bit about breeding narcissists, (subscribers don't miss anything, hint, hint), I ask you set aside 15-20 minutes to read this article:
I wouldn't include "The disinterest in paying more out of pocket to combat global warming." as an increasing trend, or related to "wokeness" in any way. It has nothing to do with identity politics or CRT. And young people, including young conservatives, are very concerned about AGW.
I'd suggest that there is a whole lot of virtue signaling among the "green," who happen to align with the Left, collectivism, social justice "woke," etc. Coincidentally, tomorrow's post is about why woke and social justice correlate with collectivism.
CRT and "green" aren't connected, but they live in the same corner of the political sandbox, and the adherents of one are very often adherents of the other. Yes, there are greens skeptical of CRT, but I bet there are few CRT advocates skeptical of green.
"If you could have anything you wanted - everything you wanted - where would you draw the line?" Ask that of ANY progressive on ANY of the topics you listed above, and you won't get a coherent or cogent response. That's the problem with progressivism - there are no lines and no limits. Today's "insane" policy prescriptions define tomorrow's threshold of "decency". And it doesn't matter that "most people" don't agree with any of this. It's no longer about what they can get others to agree with, it's now about what they can get away with. And they have extraordinarily powerful allies in the courts/legal system, media, academia and the federal executive bureaucracy. They don't need "votes" to get what they want. They rule by whim.
We have no choice but to fight all of it, all of the time, and never let up. We have to treat every issue as "the hill to die on" because at this point, they all are. You may have had no personal issue with "gay marriage" as a libertarian, but the constitution DOES have an issue with it. Specifically, marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and is rightfully left to the states to define. And if they do so arbitrarily and capriciously, so be it. If you don't like it - amend the constitution. But now we've opened the Pandora's Box of what marriage means - and it should surprise nobody that sexualizing children is the next logical step in progression. Today, "it matters" that kids aren't of legal age to consent - tomorrow it won't. Don't think so? It was just 2012 when Barack Obama himself said marriage was defined as "one man and one woman".
Today's "insanity" is tomorrow's threshold of "decency".
But, it doesn't end at the states. The states cannot pass whatever laws they want, regardless of individual rights. Right to contract is pretty fundamental, and therefore a 9A issue, and at its heart, marriage is a contract.
I vehemently disagree that sexualizing children is the next logical step. Children, definitionally, cannot consent, therefore they cannot enter into a marriage contract in a society where such consent is fundamental. That's a Grand Canyon of a difference.
But, more broadly, the matter of marriage has become entangled with the State because of money and access. There are over a thousand bits in the federal tax code alone where marital status is relevant. There are also things like hospital access, medical proxies, and so forth, where the State has set rules specifying preferential or disparate treatment based on marital status. So, from an equal access and equal protection angle alone, there should be no gender-mix exclusion to marital contracts.
That's all an aside to my point in this article, though. Again, all you note could be aired in a far more congenial fashion during confirmation hearings.
I wouldn't include "The disinterest in paying more out of pocket to combat global warming." as an increasing trend, or related to "wokeness" in any way. It has nothing to do with identity politics or CRT. And young people, including young conservatives, are very concerned about AGW.
I'd suggest that there is a whole lot of virtue signaling among the "green," who happen to align with the Left, collectivism, social justice "woke," etc. Coincidentally, tomorrow's post is about why woke and social justice correlate with collectivism.
CRT and "green" aren't connected, but they live in the same corner of the political sandbox, and the adherents of one are very often adherents of the other. Yes, there are greens skeptical of CRT, but I bet there are few CRT advocates skeptical of green.
"If you could have anything you wanted - everything you wanted - where would you draw the line?" Ask that of ANY progressive on ANY of the topics you listed above, and you won't get a coherent or cogent response. That's the problem with progressivism - there are no lines and no limits. Today's "insane" policy prescriptions define tomorrow's threshold of "decency". And it doesn't matter that "most people" don't agree with any of this. It's no longer about what they can get others to agree with, it's now about what they can get away with. And they have extraordinarily powerful allies in the courts/legal system, media, academia and the federal executive bureaucracy. They don't need "votes" to get what they want. They rule by whim.
We have no choice but to fight all of it, all of the time, and never let up. We have to treat every issue as "the hill to die on" because at this point, they all are. You may have had no personal issue with "gay marriage" as a libertarian, but the constitution DOES have an issue with it. Specifically, marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and is rightfully left to the states to define. And if they do so arbitrarily and capriciously, so be it. If you don't like it - amend the constitution. But now we've opened the Pandora's Box of what marriage means - and it should surprise nobody that sexualizing children is the next logical step in progression. Today, "it matters" that kids aren't of legal age to consent - tomorrow it won't. Don't think so? It was just 2012 when Barack Obama himself said marriage was defined as "one man and one woman".
Today's "insanity" is tomorrow's threshold of "decency".
But, it doesn't end at the states. The states cannot pass whatever laws they want, regardless of individual rights. Right to contract is pretty fundamental, and therefore a 9A issue, and at its heart, marriage is a contract.
I vehemently disagree that sexualizing children is the next logical step. Children, definitionally, cannot consent, therefore they cannot enter into a marriage contract in a society where such consent is fundamental. That's a Grand Canyon of a difference.
But, more broadly, the matter of marriage has become entangled with the State because of money and access. There are over a thousand bits in the federal tax code alone where marital status is relevant. There are also things like hospital access, medical proxies, and so forth, where the State has set rules specifying preferential or disparate treatment based on marital status. So, from an equal access and equal protection angle alone, there should be no gender-mix exclusion to marital contracts.
That's all an aside to my point in this article, though. Again, all you note could be aired in a far more congenial fashion during confirmation hearings.