A Message to Neal Boortz

by: david bozeman | published: 11 09, 2010

On his November 2 broadcast, radio talk show host Neal Boortz was celebrating the coming tsunami, crediting the Tea Party focus on taxes, the budget and big government in general. Boortz applauded the movement for not focusing on such distractions as "ab-ooortion" (which he pronounces sarcastically and condescendingly) and gay marriage. Nothing new, the libertarian-leaning Boortz typically sneers when social issues pop up on the national radar, on election day referring to "ab-ooortion" and gay marriage as issues that have no bearing on our lives. I'm paraphrasing, but that was his overall tone.

Hey, Neal, I know that fiscal conservatism is all the rage now, and that in political life you have to pick your battles wisely. There is no bigger Tea Party supporter than this writer, but allow me to submit that without LIFE, liberty isn't all that important, now is it? Simply, pro-life conservatives claim the same legal protection for the unborn that is afforded every other human being. Period. The sanctity of life does not (or at least SHOULD not) demand a justification. Hope bringing this up doesn't detract from the important things like your tax bill or a future business venture.

You're all about freedom, right? So are most social conservatives, which is why the right should not only not shy away from defending the institution of marriage but should shout about it from the rooftops. Certain conventions and mores maintain social order so that government doesn't have to. Self-sustaining families and communities, for example, comprise the foundation of a free society -- as we have seen, once there is no incentive or encouragement for fathers to support their wives and children, when a family is officially defined as whatever lifestyle arrangement makes ME happy, then social anarchy ensues and guess who steps in to fill the void? That's right, the Nanny State!

America is more than a geographic assemblage of individuals doing what they want as long as they don't harm others and blah blah blah... Our founders and great conservatives have spoken clearly about the moral foundations of a free society (Calvin Coolidge said that,"The foundation of our independence and our government rests upon our basic religious convictions."). Conservatism should not be driven solely by the Tea Party movement, as vital and healthy as it is. A movement defined by fiscal angst is one-dimensional and ultimately impotent. No society can claim benevolence or manhood while, in the name of individual liberty, it turns a blind eye to the personal and social devastation wrought by unchecked sexual promiscuity. Those precious moderates, to whom we are always advised we must tailor our message, will someday be parents or grandparent, and some (though, sadly, not all) will no longer find "ab-ooortion" a pulse-pounding cause for individual liberty. Most will deem one mother and one father the best arrangement for future generations. Social conservatism is stodgy and so not cool, but then neither are the alternatives. Ultimately, however, we will answer to a higher authority than our wallets and stock portfolios, and if the prospect of that is a distraction to you, Neal, too bad!

add a comment