Do we really want an 'inclusive' political agenda?

House Speaker Paul Ryan was interviewed and said that he wanted to push an "inclusive" agenda.

That Republican, Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said he felt professionally obligated to support whoever wins the party’s presidential nomination next year. Yet he said he believed that congressional Republicans must set a policy agenda that offered a clear contrast to the angry insurgent refrain blasting into the winter primaries.

“If we try to play our own version of identity politics and try to fuel ourselves based on darker emotions, that’s not productive,” Mr. Ryan said in a wide-ranging interview on Friday. “I don’t think it will be successful, and I don’t think it is the right thing to do. I believe in an agenda that’s inspirational, that’s inclusive, that’s optimistic.”

And that's all.  Really.  If you click the link above and read the article, you won't get a clue what Ryan is referring to by his "inclusive" agenda.

But "inclusive" is a liberal codeword that has a number of well-known meanings.

1) "Inclusive" is used to promote "marriage for all," meaning requiring all of us to approve of and sometimes even participate in homosexual marriages.  If you are for traditional marriage, you are not "inclusive."

2) "Inclusive" is used in regard to "bringing people out of the shadows" – e.g., illegal aliens.  If you are against joining with illegal aliens, you are against inclusion.

3) "Inclusive" is also a codeword for racial discrimination against whites and Asians for college admissions and jobs.  If you don't have enough of the right kind of minorities at your school, if you don't fully fund the separatist minority student centers, you are not considered "inclusive."

4) "Inclusive" has also come to mean being welcoming of unvettable Muslim refugees.  If you are against including thousands of foreigners in our country, you are not inclusive.

5) "Inclusive" has also come to mean welcoming boys disguised as women into girls' bathrooms.  If you don't welcome them, again, you are being mean-spirited and not inclusive.

But I think that inclusivity is not something to be always desired.  We don't want to be inclusive of mass murderers or people with infectious diseases, or simply the poor people of the world who want to come here and live off the largess of the taxpayer.  Paul Ryan doesn't get that, or, more worryingly, perhaps he does.

I want a politician who will talk more about "exclusivity" – the exclusivity of the American character, of our love for the rule of law, equality of opportunity but not result, and of free markets and personal and national security.

I suppose Paul Ryan is some improvement over John Boehner, superficially at least.  He's sober and doesn't look over-tanned, although his beard is starting to look a little Mufti-ish.  But in substance, I see no improvement at all.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

House Speaker Paul Ryan was interviewed and said that he wanted to push an "inclusive" agenda.

That Republican, Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said he felt professionally obligated to support whoever wins the party’s presidential nomination next year. Yet he said he believed that congressional Republicans must set a policy agenda that offered a clear contrast to the angry insurgent refrain blasting into the winter primaries.

“If we try to play our own version of identity politics and try to fuel ourselves based on darker emotions, that’s not productive,” Mr. Ryan said in a wide-ranging interview on Friday. “I don’t think it will be successful, and I don’t think it is the right thing to do. I believe in an agenda that’s inspirational, that’s inclusive, that’s optimistic.”

And that's all.  Really.  If you click the link above and read the article, you won't get a clue what Ryan is referring to by his "inclusive" agenda.

But "inclusive" is a liberal codeword that has a number of well-known meanings.

1) "Inclusive" is used to promote "marriage for all," meaning requiring all of us to approve of and sometimes even participate in homosexual marriages.  If you are for traditional marriage, you are not "inclusive."

2) "Inclusive" is used in regard to "bringing people out of the shadows" – e.g., illegal aliens.  If you are against joining with illegal aliens, you are against inclusion.

3) "Inclusive" is also a codeword for racial discrimination against whites and Asians for college admissions and jobs.  If you don't have enough of the right kind of minorities at your school, if you don't fully fund the separatist minority student centers, you are not considered "inclusive."

4) "Inclusive" has also come to mean being welcoming of unvettable Muslim refugees.  If you are against including thousands of foreigners in our country, you are not inclusive.

5) "Inclusive" has also come to mean welcoming boys disguised as women into girls' bathrooms.  If you don't welcome them, again, you are being mean-spirited and not inclusive.

But I think that inclusivity is not something to be always desired.  We don't want to be inclusive of mass murderers or people with infectious diseases, or simply the poor people of the world who want to come here and live off the largess of the taxpayer.  Paul Ryan doesn't get that, or, more worryingly, perhaps he does.

I want a politician who will talk more about "exclusivity" – the exclusivity of the American character, of our love for the rule of law, equality of opportunity but not result, and of free markets and personal and national security.

I suppose Paul Ryan is some improvement over John Boehner, superficially at least.  He's sober and doesn't look over-tanned, although his beard is starting to look a little Mufti-ish.  But in substance, I see no improvement at all.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.