As for abortion, I think every abortion is a tragedy and that abortion should never be encouraged. If one of my family members were to consider abortion, I would strongly persuade them not to get one. However, phiolosophically, I don’t think a fetus obtains personhood until they achieve self awareness. I don’t know when that occurs, but I think it is safe to say the morning after pill would end a pregnancy prior to the fetus obtaining agency. On the other hand, by three months, I believe that fetuses develop distinctly human attributes and should be assumed to have agency.

As a man, I don’t think I could contemplate the emotions of becoming pregnant from incest or rape, so I think those women should be given more time to recover from the shock and embarassment before choosing whether to give birth to the child. However, I would defer to women who have undergone that experience to inform policy.

I also have strong concerns about self-induced or back alley abortions that might lead to permanent damage or death. Since I know abortion would be legal in some states, I don’t have a problem with federalism on this issue. In general, I think all life is sacred and treated too cavalierly. I have been a vegetarian for a number of years and I don’t think God ever bestowed gave humankind the authority to engage in factory farming meat production. While I believe in granting women the ability to have abortions in the first trimester, I would certainly not encourage them to have an abortion in any situation. I also have strong ethical concerns about the practice of in-vitro fertilization and I think it is completely hypocritical to oppose the morning after pill and support in vitro methods.

As far as the defense budget, I don’t know why we would need to spend so much on our military in the absence of interventionism. We are already spend much more than any other country and I don’t foresee any threats of invasion.

As a young conservative, 21 years old, I feel I should respond to your post above.

“If you want to know the most appealing conservative arguments to young people that literally hate Bush and the modern Republican party, here goes:

Federalize abortion rights (I personally believe that abortion should be legal in the first 3 months or first 5 months in case of rape or abortion, but I am tired of the culture war)”

I know of very few conservatives that want to keep abortion rights federalized. Many of them just hate the automatic religious attachment to the GOP’s response to Roe and Casey. They feel that people can make a compelling argument that rejects the right to privacy argument made by Blackmum (oddly, Ginsburg rejects the right to privacy argument). They feel that conservatives can make a strong Constitutional right to life argument, as well as an argument against violent action of a human. And instead of religious evidence, conservatives should use scientific evidence that goes along the lines of a fetus is a human regardless of viability. A single celled fetus is ultimately a very immature form of a human. Because of this, abortion should not be constitutionally protected because the right to life is an unalienable right. Of course the response is that liberty is as well, and women should have the liberty to abort their fetuses. However, the right to life trumps the right to liberty in this instance because without life, you cannot have liberty. Ideally, young conservatives want this issue back at the state level where it can be better debated and many different abortion laws can be experimented with to see what is best.

“Federalize gay marriage (abandon the Constitutional amendment)”

Again, young conservatives do not want to see *any* marriage federalized. Marriage is a states issue. Young conservatives see any law prohibiting gay marriage as simply discriminatory. If conservatives want to reduce gay marriage, churches and social groups should be the ones discouraging it. Not the government.

“Reduce the size of the military and militaristic adventurism”

I wouldn’t say the young conservatives I have spoken with would advocate the reduction of the size of the military, but rather, stop the rampant interventionism from both parties. The idea of “unforeseen externalities” or as Chalmers Johnson puts it, blowback, runs deep in young conservatives philosophies. Foreign Policy is currently the main example of this. Many of us have grown up during an era where government decisions have had serious consequences that our generation has to deal with. Government programs such as Social Security is running out of money. Government interventions during the Cold War coming back in the form of terrorism. Government intervention in the housing markets through Fannie and Freddie. Government interventions in our personal life via Patriot Act. I can go on and on. And young conservatives are simply saying “stop.”

I guess, simply put, young conservatives want to see a gradual return to federalism. But they don’t want the GOP doing it right now because the GOP is incompetent. Nobody is patient enough to let it happen. I have talked to many young conservatives, older conservatives, and some moderate liberals who are sympathetic to federalism. But conservatives really have to make a push to make their ideas easily digestible to the masses, but intellectually powerful enough to stand rigorous analysis. It is definitely possible, but has to be done right. I think this is where traditional conservatives should be focusing.

The argument never really began, in part because the GOP leadership isn’t “obsessed” with the issue. Moral conservatives have lazily assumed they didn’t have to argue the distasteful matter, which has been more advanced by the normalization of internet pornography than by rational debate.

Also, I have been anti-Republican since I became eligible to vote in 1996. However, I am generally dissatisfied with democrats as well and I am not registered with either party. I voted for BJ Lawson this year because I found a number of his arguments very persuasive. If you want to know the most appealing conservative arguments to young people that literally hate Bush and the modern Republican party, here goes:

Federalize abortion rights (I personally believe that abortion should be legal in the first 3 months or first 5 months in case of rape or abortion, but I am tired of the culture war)

Federalize gay marriage (abandon the Constitutional amendment)

Reform drug laws and punishments

Reduce the size of the military and militaristic adventurism

Simplify the tax code (especially remove the tax supports for home ownership)

Stop subsidies for big agriculture (I am especially opposed to the subsidies that artificially lower the price of corn syrup and animal feed)

Increase government transparency, especially with regard to the justice department and actions of the executive branch

Eliminate domestic surveillance, illegal detention, and torture

Increase the penalty for white collar crime and the ability to seize the assets of those that profit through fraud

Refocus the prison system to rehabilitation. I personally favor a prison system that better sorts criminals: level 1: murderers and violent rape, level 2: non-violent rape, manslaughter, attempter murder, level 3: armed robbery, violent assault, level 4: domestic violence, unarmed burglary and theft, fraud. I am not sure of the exact levels, but I would allow prisoners to move up and down levels based on behavior and desire to participate in job training and education. Upon release, I think criminals should be identified by which type of facility they were released from, which would be indicative of their efforts at rehabilitation.

Anyways, the modern Republican party is nauseating to most educated young people due to its tribalism, corruption, bigotry, cronyism, and favoritism to the aristocracy. However, it is not necessarily because we love democrats, who are also seen as corrupt, big business toadies with no backbone.

__________________________________________________

In fact, the main obsessions of the GOP leadership are those very cultural factors that will continue to alienate the 18-29 year olds. In the real world (that of JSP), the argument about gay rights has been over for some time. Most major companies offer benefits to same sex partners. People in the real world understand, by and large, that abortion is a complex and often highly personal issue. The god/gays/guns approach is a guaranteed loser with this age group.

Secondly, I would argue that this time in the wilderness can be highly beneficial to conservatism. I see it as a blank slate and a time where people can honestly ask the question of “What is worth conserving?” And I just cannot seem to believe a majority of conservatives choosing the last 30 years of neo-con dominance as something worth preserving. Furthermore, it is plausible that neo-conservatism is a historical anomaly that thrives off of the Cold War and harsh anti-communism. The Bush Administration has tried to replace communism with terrorism, but it is not sticking. This is clearly a good thing. By conservatives spending time in the wilderness, conservatives are forced to have a substantive debate over the future of conservatism. Nobody wants to be on the outside looking in (Tories from 1997-present) and I hope the urgency creates solid discourse.

ISI, AmCon, AmSpec and others are putting in solid work, but Frum and the boys at National Review (slowly morphing into The Weekly Standard 2.0) are churning out book after book defending big government conservatism. We have also seen this with Douthat and Salam (Grand New Party), but not real substantive response to that (in book form). I’ve yet to come up with an answer (other than ‘nothing’) to “what is worth conserving about big government intervention?” With the GOP likely getting drubbed in a couple weeks, it presents traditional conservatives with their best opportunity since Goldwater to make a push to shift the debate back to where it rightfully belongs.

And I guess the question that remains is how to shift the debate.

Err, unless there was a recent Tory Resurgence that I missed, I think you mean 1797. :)

What do you mean “open presidential election?” Kennedy won an election where the President was not running for re-election.

If by open you mean that no President nor Vice-President was running, we haven’t had one of those since at least 1952, so there is going to be a rather small sample size.