I think Reagan is actually in the middle between Goldwater and Santorum. Goldwater didn't like the religious right and supported abortion rights and later, gay rights. He endorsed Richard Nixon over Reagan in the 1968 primary and Gerald Ford over Reagan in the 1976 primary. There may have been some jealousy issues beteween Goldwater and Reagan that played a role in the endorsements, but it is also true that Goldwater's emphasis was always states' rights even more than conservatism. Reagan was more in tune with the religious right, more comfortable around their leaders, and cannot be that easily put over and against the Santorum view wholly on Goldwater's side, except that possibly Reagan and the religious right may have been a little more a marriage of convenience than many conservative Christians might want to acknowlege. In other words, Reagan emotionally identified with conservative Christians in many ways to the extent that he was willing to invoke the federal government on relgion's behalf at least in speech in ways that Goldwater wouldn't, but yet he didn't push real hard for a religious right agenda at the federal level, either.

I agree with Joel. And let's not forget Reagan's crusade against pornography (now being mistakenly repeated by the Bush administration), which was squarely in the Santorum camp and not the Goldwater camp. I'd put Reagan much closer to Santorum than to Goldwater.

William Rusher of National Review once wrote that Goldwater wasn't really a conservative.

Also, considering that Goldwater endorsed Eisenhower over the more conservative Taft in 1952, one can claim either pragmatism or internationalism on Goldwater's part. Goldwater didn't care much for the UN or foreign aid but he also considered Taft too isolationist.

Ronald Reagan promoted "family values" but let's be honest -- even being fairly charitable, Reagan, while giving high priority to wife Nancy, was not significantly committed to family life via his children.

Joel-

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "family values". It has nothing to do with real families or caring for one's family. It's a catchphrase designed to invoke fear of Them. Gore Vidal pointed out 25 years ago that the phrase really means "Get the fags".

And let's not forget Reagan's crusade against pornography (now being mistakenly repeated by the Bush administration)

I'm too young to remember what Reagan did regarding pornography, but I'm curious what it is that the Bush administration is doing that you object to. I'm guessing it's not the FCC crackdown on broadcast TV, because no one would seriously call any of that "pornography." Is it the push for porn filters in public libraries? (Although I'm unaware that the Bush admin has done anything significant on that issue.)

Eric wrote:

I'm too young to remember what Reagan did regarding pornography, but I'm curious what it is that the Bush administration is doing that you object to. I'm guessing it's not the FCC crackdown on broadcast TV, because no one would seriously call any of that "pornography." Is it the push for porn filters in public libraries? (Although I'm unaware that the Bush admin has done anything significant on that issue.)

No, I'm referring to the vastly ramped up prosecutions for "obscenity" charges for consensual adult pornography that the DOJ is currently engaged in. One of the first things Gonzales did when he was named Attorney General was to dramatically increase the resources allocated to such cases. They've gone after several prominent porn producers over the last couple years, but have lost in court so far.

I think that the definition of "family values" falls under what Thomas Sowell once wrote. Recalling from memory, he stated that the Left is more than willing to give stuff to families, but often bristles at the notion of the family as a "decision-making unit" - that is, the Left has strong jurisdictional disputes (particularly over education) with this most localized level of government.

Alan-

I reject the notion that the family is in any meaningful sense the "most localized level of government". In fact, it strikes me as an entirely absurd idea. By any possible conception of "government" in which this characterization could apply, the individual would in fact be the most localized form of government. But the fact is that governments operate under an entirely different set of rules than either individuals or families. Governments should be far more limited in what it can do than either individuals or families; of course, our society no longer takes that principle seriously and that is tragic.

But none of this really has to do with what the phrase "family values" means, which was the subject you were ostensibly responding to. The limits of family authority and the notion of "family values" as a political catchphrase have little to do with each other. "Family values" is a catchphrase for a series of policies that would vastly increase the power of government over the lives of individuals - harsh anti-pornography legislation, anti-sodomy laws, greater censorship of the arts and media, etc. Those are the proposals that are typically justified by reference to "family values". How sodomy laws protect "family values" is well beyond my ability to comprehend.

No, I'm referring to the vastly ramped up prosecutions for "obscenity" charges for consensual adult pornography that the DOJ is currently engaged in.

Could you be more specific about "vastly ramped up?" I recall that under the Clinton administration, pornographers were reportedly happy about the "benign neglect" they received from the feds--in other words, the Clinton justice department didn't enforce the laws on the books.

I don't really care to debate what sort of obscenity laws we should have (maybe you don't think there should be any at all regarding consenting adults), but I do think that not enforcing existing laws is bad policy.

Eric Seymour wrote:

Could you be more specific about "vastly ramped up?" I recall that under the Clinton administration, pornographers were reportedly happy about the "benign neglect" they received from the feds--in other words, the Clinton justice department didn't enforce the laws on the books.

Enforcing obscenity laws is not nearly as simple as "enforcing the laws on the books". The obscenity laws are incredibly subjective, meaning that you could prosecute or not prosecute almost entirely at the subjective whim of the prosecutor. It's not like a prosecutor deciding not to prosecute someone for, say, robbery, which has an objective definition. Most of the time, however, such prosecutions lose in court, including most recently in Federal court in Pennsylvania in a case that the DOJ says they may appeal.

By "vastly ramped up", I mean that Gonzales has made anti-pornography cases (adult porn, not child porn) one of his top priorities. In the first major address he gave after being confirmed as AJ, he announced a major restructuring of the DOJ departments in this regard and the creation of the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. A recent article on Law.com discussed the situation. It said:

When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.

Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?

The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.

Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.

His own prosecutors have warned Acosta that prioritizing adult porn would reduce resources for prosecuting other crimes, including porn involving children. According to high-level sources who did not want to be identified, Acosta has assigned prosecutors porn cases over their objections.

If he wants to go after child porn in a stronger way, I'm all for it. If he wants to make it tougher for children to access adult porn, I'm all for that too (it's far too easy to find porn on the internet long before you have to put in a credit card). But to put these enormous resources behind a crusade to stop consenting adults from making or viewing material in the privacy of their own home is unjustifiably oppressive and a waste of time and money that is better spent protecting people from others rather than from themselves.

I certainly wouldn't want to see prosecution of organized crime and narcotics significantly scaled back to finance a "crusade" against porn. But the article doesn't mention what the comparative budgets are. Will obscenity prosecution cost 10% of the violent crimes budget? 1%? 0.1%?

All we have is an article that cites unnamed sources who are unhappy with Acosta and Gonzales' priorities. It's possible these are libertarian-minded people who don't think we should spend a cent on prosecuting obscenity until organized crime has been completely eliminated--if then. I respectfully disagree.

I don't think much of that really has anything to do with my original claim, which was simply that the DOJ is currently engaged in a major increase in prosecutions for consensual adult pornography, similar to the one that Ed Meese attempted when he was Reagan's AJ. My statement was true. I suspect that the "unnamed sources" are FBI agents and prosecutors who would prefer to put real criminals in jail, not those who aren't hurting anyone. I know if I was a prosecutor, I'd much rather prosecute crimes that actually have victims.

Again, what is a "major increase?" You haven't provided any actual details. Has Gonzales increased the budget from $0 under Clinton to $1 million out of a multi-billion-dollar budget? That would be a huge proportional increase (infinity percent!), but still only a very minor budget item.

If you don't think any adult pornography should be illegal, fine. But I personally think some types of porn are horrible enough to be outlawed (e.g., porn that portrays a rape or purports to be a "snuff film," even though the participants were consenting and no one was actually killed).

The reason I'm so insistent about this point is that it's so easy to spread misconceptions by using terminology loosely.

In the 1990s there were a total of 4 prosecutions nationally for pornography; in the last 5 years there have been 40 and many more are pending. The AG has announced that this is one of his top priorities and he has set up a task force specifically to carry out such prosecutions. By any reasonable criteria, I think this can be called a "major increase."

Thanks. I don't happen to think that 8 prosecutions per year (in a nation with tens of thousands of porn producers and distributors) represents a "crusade." I do think that only 4 in a decade (most if not all of which were probably under Bush '41) is rather negligent, however. Obviously we have very different views on this subject.

The problem with your argument, Eric, is the definition of obscenity as a crime; what offends your senses is therefore a harm to your well-being or to that of someone else. But is one truly harmed by something they consider obscene? Are you physically injured? Does obscene material meet the general standard of crime, that is, someone committing injury or death to another or robbing them of their life, liberty or property.

Last I checked, hardcore porn such as that produced by Rob Black of Extreme Associates (who was charged by the Justice department with conspiracy, sending obscene materials via mail order and transmitting obscene materials through computer) does no physical harm to anyone. Nor is it put in your face: One would have to either enter a porn shop (in Indianapolis) or in more liberal (philosophically in the old style classical liberal sense) corners of the world, the back room of a mom-and-pop video shop (in Los Angeles) to pick one up. Or one would have to actually search for the material on the Internet. Where oh where does this material, offensive as it might be for the Eric Seymours of the world (the RiShawn Biddles just find it dull to watch) actually harms anyone?

One would certainly argue that with the exception of kiddie porn and anything involving actual rape, obscenity is one of those crimes that actually shouldn't even be on the books. Whether eight prosecutions a year isn't an increase in your book doesn't really matter in a factual sense; when one ramps up from 4 obscenity cases in a decade to 8 a year, it shows that the feds are devoting resources to prosecuting activities that don't meet the definition of crimes. And that's absolutely ridiculous.

RiShawn,

Well, that's the classic defense of so-called "victimless crimes." I don't want to get into that debate here and now, but suffice it to say that I don't buy those defenses. Just as with prostitution, pornography involves exploitation of the people involved (usually women), and it degrades and poisons our entire society. Although I wouldn't push for outlawing Playboy, I certainly agree with banning the most extreme examples of hardcore porn.

I support the illegality of child porn and vigorous prosecution of all involved with it, whether selling or purchasing.

But who is to say with regards to other materials? My Senator, then Congressman, Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, raised a spirited objection to the televising of "Schindler's List" as obscenity that should be shocking to the conscience of any family-oriented Christian.

The American Family Association, run by far right-wing United Methodist pastor Donald Wildmon, tried to get the networks not to run "Saving Private Ryan."

What exploitation? Last I checked, the women engaged in pornography (and much of prostitution, by the way) are over the age of 18; many have been engaged in other forms of sex-related work (stripping, for example) and were of free mind and body to choose. Whether their decisions were wise is a far different question; but they made their choices.

In the case of porn, exploitation doesn't even exist. On average, most porn actresses will make up into the four-figures for a given day's work; that adds up to a middle-class income (and in the case of a Jenna Jameson, a millionaire's income) over a year. Adding to the lack of exploitation; women such as Jameson, Danni Ashe and Belladonna have parlayed their success into their own production companies, which has further improved the possibilities for women to have careers once they've exhausted their looks.

Now if you simply object to porn based on your own moral arguments, Seymour, then that's your right. But last I checked, the Constitution doesn't allow you or anyone else to impose moral judgements unless they involve actual crimes. So there.

When you have some facts to prove your argument, Seymour, perhaps I'll consider your position more credible.

By the way, in the case of prostitution, I say for the most part, it isn't exploitive. This isn't to say there aren't exploitation issues. There are. Chinese and Mexican women smuggled into this country and forced to work in brothels is one example; another is street prostitution where women get paid almost nothing for their work.

But both problems have little to do with prostitution itself; after all, selling one's sexual services for money isn't that much different from stripping or high-end fashion modeling.

In the case of smuggled women, the problems are, for one, an immigration system that isn't based on excluding criminals, terrorists and those with contagious diseases, but on excluding people based on whatever political scare tactic in effect, be it the decision to restrict the number of H-1B visas issued because of fears of foreigners supposedly taking jobs from qualified Americans (false) or that there are too many foreigners within our midst (despite the fact that there is no one in this country who can trace their lineage back to a true native American; not even the Indians, who originate from Mongolia.)

Such a warped system of immigration gives incentives to smugglers to move women to this country. After all, these are able-bodied women who want to move to this country because of the economic and social opportunities; they would be able to arrive here legally under an immigration system based on the ability to maintain employment and they would be hired. Until immigration is made more sensible, people-smuggling will continue to occur; instead of becoming prostitutes, they'd just work in other areas such as maid services and restaurants.

The other problem is the fact that prostitution is illegal; when government makes a generally non-criminal activity a crime, it essentially removes itself from regulating it and thus imposing work and wage laws that would make such labor fair and equitable. Pimps exist because prostitution has been made illegal and thus they are able to take advantage of those problems. Make it illegal and the government can impose wage and work condition rules that would work in favor of these women; porn is already subject to those rules and more because it is legal.

Consider how we deal with the the janitorial industry. This is an industry that many, including the SEIU union consider to be exploitive, especially because the firms allegedly hire workers who are considered illegal under our immigration laws and pays them poorly. Yet we don't ban the industry. Why? Because as far as we are concerned, the problems aren't inherent in the industry, but in the laws with which the industry and its employees tangle. So we push for the feds to enforce wage and hour laws, promote unionization of the industry and fine them (in theory) for hiring illegals. We don't ban the industry itself.

If it's a manner in which we treat janitorial services, what makes prostitution any different (besides the moral arguments)?