Comments on: Razib on Reihan + Grand New Party (updated)

By: Manju

Manju — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:18:01 +0000

9 Â· states' rights said

ah, decentralized. i always love the principled appeals to federalism.

is there any movement afoot to establish marriage rights on a federal level? Perhaps, "decentralized was a jab to social conservatives who are willing to throw federalism under the bus in order to procet the sanctity of marriage.

By: states' rights

states' rights — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:09:14 +0000

One thing that must be done is the steady, decentralized establishment of equal marriage rights.

ah, decentralized. i always love the principled appeals to federalism.

By: vinod

vinod — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:15:20 +0000

7 Ã‚Â· Nayagan said

"Pro-heterosexual, two-parent family"? I doubt the authors would allow anyone they saw as deviants the benefits of such a public policy overhaul.

Reihan's take -

One thing that must be done is the steady, decentralized establishment of equal marriage rights.

By: Nayagan

Nayagan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:13:39 +0000

6 Â· vinod said

I probably munged things a little when I characterized the prescriptions as "a sort of Natalism" - i.e. "pro-baby" (although Reihan does occasionally use the word). They're probably more accurately "pro-parenting" or "pro-family" and questions like citizenship on birth are orthogonal to this.

do you mean "Pro-heterosexual, two-parent family"? I doubt the authors would allow anyone they saw as deviants the benefits of such a public policy overhaul.

By: vinod

vinod — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:00:19 +0000

5 Â· louiecypher said

I understand disincentivizing illegitimacy and a halt to the practice of offering citizenship upon birth for the children of non-citizens/permanent residents, but why incentivize "optimal births"?

I probably munged things a little when I characterized the prescriptions as "a sort of Natalism" - i.e. "pro-baby" (although Reihan does occasionally use the word). They're probably more accurately "pro-parenting" or "pro-family" and questions like citizenship on birth are orthogonal to this.

By: louiecypher

louiecypher — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:50:30 +0000

I understand disincentivizing illegitimacy and a halt to the practice of offering citizenship upon birth for the children of non-citizens/permanent residents, but why incentivize “optimal births”?

By: razib _the_atheist

razib _the_atheist — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:45:27 +0000

just for the record, ross is a self-identified wannabe christian democrat. so his form of “conservatism” is pretty exotic in the american classical liberal landscape. reihan is to a great extent sui generis, but he’s described himself as 85% libertarian and 15% not.

By: KXB

KXB — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:58:33 +0000

I’ve seen Salam do the talk show circuit, and while he is knowledgable about issues, the impression I get is he is a bit too insular. Most of his policy prescriptions seem to deal with the world not how it is, but in an ideal world. That may change as time goes on.

By: Chevalier

Chevalier — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:21:33 +0000

Interesting framework. But aren’t a lot of (2)’s usually Republican? I would think we would need to break (2)’s down by psychographics, since that group has very high psychographics-driven variation. e.g. CEOs of large firms would think differently about politics than film celebrities.

Also, (1)’s are possibly the bellweather group – in the late 1970′s/early-to-mid 80′s, (1)’s were majority Repiublican. Now they’re vocal Democrats.

By: Nayagan

Nayagan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:35:04 +0000

his media criticism is pretty entertaining--and I would say he's a far better writer than his co-author, Mr. Douthat (in that the prose is digestible). On natalism , Kerry Howley makes several good points here in reviewing the book.