Outside the Tower

Thanks for reading, but I'm done

2006-02-06T23:55:00.000-08:00

Due to lack of interest, I have stopped posting at Outside the Tower and, unless there is a popular outcry to draw me back (via comments on this post that will be emailed to me), I will likely never resume. Thanks to my small (but dedicated) readership for keeping it real.

--Longshott

Culture of Corruption in the GOP

2006-01-16T10:36:00.000-08:00

Stephen Moore: eternally wrong on immigration, but invariably right on the need to clean up the Republican party:

"In the last five years, Republicans have enacted the largest increase in entitlement spending in three decades, doubled the education budget, nearly tripled the number of earmarked spending projects, and turned a blind eye toward the corrosive culture of corruption on Capitol Hill that seems so eerily reminiscent of the final days of Democratic rule in the House."

Republicans have become their own worst nightmare. We, the voters, unfortunately, are left with a reactionary socialist party (the Democrats), and a corrupt socialist party (GOP) w/ gestures (but no substance) in the right direction.

The Declining GOP

2006-01-15T21:24:00.000-08:00

No, and it's not just for all of the reasons I have listed before. It is demographic. I have long recognized this problem and Pat Buchanan articulates it succinctly here. Basically, Bush's "vote-buying" tactics are mortgaging the future. He fails to do anything about illegal immigration in order to woo hispanic voters, but in the long-term this weakens the GOP. Hispanics will, before long, become a majority in this country. They already are in California and this is the reason the state leans so far to the socialist left. Gov. Schwarzennegar (sp?) put forward some very modest reform proposals a couple of months ago (really radical stuff like requiring unions to get the permission of their members before spending money on politics) and was rebuffed heartily at the polls. Who could possibly be against such innocuous and transparently helpful legislation? Take a look at the demographics of California, you will know. Also realize that California's demographics are quickly becoming America's.

The only solution...

2006-01-11T19:31:00.000-08:00

to the intelligent design in school controversy. As Cato points out here, as long as the government has a virtual monopoly in education, we will have controversy after controversy because every interest group wants their viewpoint to be the "official" one. But since we all have different viewpoints and takes on life, there will never be a consensus and somebody will always be upset. The only answer is to allow people to choose what values and assumptions their educational institution will embrace a priori. There is no other solution. Read the piece.

The Reactionary Party Strikes Back

2006-01-09T22:04:00.000-08:00

Joe Biden at Alito's Hearing today: [paraphrase] "we must decide if the court will change direction, or remain within the consensus that has existed for 70 years." Once again, the Democrats go to show that their shift from "liberal" to "reactionary" in the past 20 years is complete. They are utterly opposed to change for the sake of opposing change. They are committed to maintaining the status quo come what may and protecting privileged groups who support their reactionary ideology. Going by the dictionary there is nothing "liberal" about the Democratic party of 2006.

Franklin Delano Bush

2006-01-04T22:14:00.000-08:00

Or so the Cato Institute has dubbed him. Although I usually don't find much common cause with anarchists, the folks at Cato are some of the rare people to see Bush for what he is. Read about it here. Conservatives have gotten so caught up in winning elections and defending the mistaken war in Iraq, that they have forgotten what conservatism used to mean: it was, at its core, a philosophy of limited government; a philosophy that appreciated the limits to what the government could accomplish and a philosophy that understood that government programs rob the beneficiaries of their dignity and rob those who pay for them of their freedom. Bush's "solve every problem by throwing money at it" has betrayed the core principle of conservatism. I often get replies from Bush's defenders that he is still a conservative because of: Tax Cuts, Aggressive Foreign Policy (although I don't know how conservative this is) and social values, but each of these aspects of conservatism is peripheral to the central aspect--limited government--and all of the tax cuts, wars, and god-talk in the world can't make up for the fact that Bush gets an F as a conservative because of his dramatic failures in limiting government.

Pay Millions to Congress

2005-12-27T21:27:00.000-08:00

Don't know if that would solve our problems, but that is what Thomas Sowell, 5th smartest man in the country, thinks we should do to save our system. Read about it here.

Accretion of Washington Power

2005-12-17T22:59:00.000-08:00

“Government,” said John Adams, “turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself.” “Government,” said George Washington, “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Republicans need to take note. Thankfully, some are, at least here at American Enterprise.

Unfortunately, the Republicans in office are not:
"with the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress, domestic expenditures (even excluding post–9/11 “homeland security” spending) have been growing faster than during the previous two decades of divided government, and the incidence of pork-barrel projects has reached an all-time high. The 2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Republican Party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority governing party just as comfortable with big government as the Democrats, only with different spending priorities"

I often heard Republican friends say in the 2004 election that they were going to vote for Bush because "Kerry would be worse." But I want to know, how could he possibly be? President Bush has the worst record in upholding the constitution's fundamental principle (limited govt) of any president at least since LBJ and perhaps ever. If the "better" candidate is he who will do what I consider most important--defend the principles of the constitution--then it would be nearly impossible for Kerry to have been worse than Bush, for Bush has set a record in expanding government power and, thus, reducing American constitutionalism.

More on Darwinism

2005-12-16T00:54:00.000-08:00

I'm also puzzled by Darwinists who make value judgments (and they all do). You constantly hear the likes of Bertrand Russell, Stephen Jay Gould, or Isaac Aasimov, convinced Darwinist/Atheists all, that "genocide is wrong, racism is wrong, capitalism/exploitation are wrong, etc. etc." I would like to know (and Russell was one of the foremost logicians of all time so this should have been cake for him) how they can logically arrive at this conclusion. Let's walk through the logic, shall we?

1. Proposition A: "Right behavior" equals whatever is "advantageous to survival"
Evolutionists have long claimed that Darwinism still allows for morality. They point at, for instance, how compassion contributes to the long term survival of the species and therefore is consistent with the Darwinist idea that "survival is good"

2. Proposition B: All Behaviors Help Humans Survive
Darwinism claims that all behavior manifest by humans (all of it) is a result of its conferring survival value on the individual that shows it. This is true by definition. If Darwinists claimed otherwise, this would simply beg the question of what does cause the behavior and then we would be looking into the realm of religion (or at least outside of materialist/naturalist explanations for things) and this is the realm that scientists are forbidden to go (don't believe me? look at their apoplexy over intelligent design). If survival/Darwinism does not explain the behavior, then what does? A consistent Darwinist cannot say anything on this issue, otherwise he would violate his own axiom that "Darwinism explains everything." To say otherwise would be to admit the fallibility of Darwinism and then (oh, the horror!) they would be in the same camp as (boooo, hissss) the Intelligent Design advocates.

3. Conclusion: There is no such thing as "wrong" or immoral behavior
Since all behaviors give survival value (otherwise, by Darwinian theory, they wouldn't exist, they wouldn't have "survived" and everything that "is," by definition, "is" because it gives survival value), no behavior can be priveleged over another as more ethical or moral. It is logically impossible. To the Atheist, Evolution explains EVERYTHING with the silver bullet idea that everything that is can be explained by survival value/survival of the fittest, hence ALL behaviors promote survival and, therefore, all behaviors are moral.

So let's do a little thought experiment here to see how this plays out. Adolf and Oscar live at the same time in roughly the same place and are both accidents of evolution (as all living things are). Adolf decides to round Jews up and exterminate them in ovens, while Oscar likes (at great personal risk to himself) to help Jews escape Adolf's extermination.

To the logically consistent Darwinist, both Oscar and Adolf's actions are equally moral, since both (according to Darwinist theory) by definition aid in their own personal survival (the goal of any organism, including Oscar and Adolf, according to Darwin). In fact, Darwinists come up with elaborate theories to explain both of these (opposite and contradictory) behaviors. They claim that the altruistic instinct (Oscar's behavior) aids in long-term survival since it enhances the probability of genetic transmission among possible or perceived kin. They would then, in the next breath, say that all organisms are in a competition for resources and any behavior that aids one creature in securing these resources over another (Adolf's behavior) is advantageous to survival.

But see, this is where evolution gets really...well...silly. Any "scientific" theory that explains one thing and the opposite thing at the same time is no theory at all, but an incredible religious belief requiring a very admirable leap of faith. How would the scientific community have received Einstein if he would have claimed that the theory of relativity both predicts and does not predict that starlight will be bent by the sun, or that Energy=MC^2 but also does not =MC^2 (depending on what empirical verification happens to give us)? They would have rightly dismissed him as loony. Science is the enterprise of generating explanatory theories whose value is determined by the theory's ability to predict certain outcomes. With Darwinism, the biologist "predicts" (since he's always dealing with retro-active phenomena this is very easy) everything. Oh yes, I know, sometimes biologists make "interpolations" or small inductions that are "predictive" but this is just simply drawing between the lines rather than predicting novel phenomena according to a predetermined model. Never has an atheistic Darwinist said "X behavior should result based on our theory" and then tested the theory to see if, indeed, "X Behavior" resulted. Instead, they say "tell me what behavior exists and I will fit it into my theory ex post facto." This is not science, it is witch-doctoring and superstition.

If rounding up Jews and killing them did not help Adolf's survival, then why does he do it? Evolution cannot provide an alternate answer because, as I have already mentioned, Darwinism is based on the idea that all behavior is manifest precisely BECAUSE it aids survival, including Adolf's. To say otherwise would be to contradict their most cherished dogma: Evolution (survival) explains everything that is.

Once again, this is just another example of how lost materialist Darwinists are when it comes to anything transcendent (i.e. anything really important, like morality, meaning, love, purpose, etc.) and how spurious and inauthentic are their attempts to claim any moral foundations at all. Without some kind of transcendence beyond Darwinism (which they are unwilling to admit) there can never be a distinction between good and bad behavior. It is logically impossible. All attempts will remain futile and all Atheistic Darwinists who try to claim that their philosophy does not equate to nihilism are self-deceiving and hypocritical.

Darwinists (once again) Overextended

2005-12-16T00:50:00.000-08:00

This article in the Atlantic has caused a minor stir. It says, in effect, that religious belief is a freak accident of evolution and that religious belief is the cognitive by-product of evolution gone awry. In other words, religious belief is an evolutionary defect--an accident.

Now wait a minute here, I'm a little confused. Isn't Darwin's whole theory premised on the idea that EVERYTHING (including religous belief, two eyes, coagulating blood, etc. etc.) is an accident? Isn't the idea that everything exhibited in the biological realm is the result of chance and accident the whole crux of Darwinism?

The most basic dogma of Darwin's theory says that things are as they are because of a series of accidents, and certain accidents (genetic mutations) happen to confer survival value upon the possessor who, in turn, passes this trait on to its/his/her genetic descendents. Hence, it is by accidents that we have all variations in living things and it is by accident that we have all behaviors and beliefs that any organism (e.g., a human) might demonstrate. To claim that anything (including religious belief) was NOT an accident would be to claim that there was purpose involved (i.e. God) and good materialist-Darwinists reject purpose out of hand. So this Atlantic Monthly scientist saying "religious belief" is an accident, simply repeats (tautologically) what Darwinism claims by its very essence. Saying that religious belief resulted from an accident is merely saying what Darwinists have said from the beginning. The idea that this is somehow "news" or a "breakthrough" in science strikes me as a little sophomoric and Un-Darwinian.

PS: Following this logical thread, wouldn't it also be accurate to say that "scientific belief" is just as much an accident as religious belief? How can the materialist-Darwinist say otherwise and remain consistent? If Darwinism says that ALL beliefs and behaviors are the result of accident and chance, why privilege scientific belief over religious belief? They are both equally the result of accidents and you can't give a good reason for claiming the legitimacy of one and not the other. Perhaps next month the Atlantic will run a cover story breaking the "news" that scientific belief is the result of an evolutionary "accident" (I won't hold my breath for this).

Matinee Mitt

2005-12-16T00:25:00.000-08:00

Now that Mitt Romney has announced he will not seek re-election as Mass Governor, many are perking up their ears at his Presidential aspirations. But is he electable? The Boston Globe chimes in here.

Grievances Against the Republican Party

2005-12-13T23:44:00.000-08:00

The list of discontents grows. The Club for Growth has a great list that shows just how far the party of Reagan has fallen. Acton's maxim holds more true now then ever: power does indeed corrupt and conservatives should regret the day the Republican Party became the majority. The very power the party gained caused it to self destruct.

Tookie vs. Arnold

2005-12-12T23:08:00.000-08:00

Tookie Williams is (was, I guess he, thankfully, is dead now) a monster and Gov. Schwarzenneger is proving once again to be a surprisingly strong leaader. The Governor's statement released today offering his reasoning behind refusing to pardon Williams should be required reading for every American citizen. Not only does it offer a strong case for the death penalty but it lays out clearly that the evidence is undeniable that Williams was both guilty of the crimes he committed and never "reformed" in any sense as he claimed. His disposition well into his prison sentence was that of murder and continuing predatory behavior. Those who claim we should have let Williams go in the name of "compassion" really have things backward. What about compassion for the poor, inner-city neighborhoods that animals like Williams terrorize? What about compassion for the massacred victims and their families that will suffer for the rest of their lives because of his actions? In speaking of "compassion" in public discourse, we must reclaim the term from the criminal-coddlers who have no sense what real compassion is.

Thanks for the comments

2005-12-11T22:22:00.000-08:00

Recently I have been getting a lot of comments from readers. Thank you, especially to "That Kid's Dad" whose comments have been both incisive and insightful. It's nice to know that I have readers. Those of you who have not posted comments, please do so that I can know you are out there and also so that I can sharpen my thinking based on those with other viewpoints/experiences. Thanks again,

Longshott

Review of Fukuyama's _The Great Disruption_

2005-12-11T22:13:00.000-08:00

Just finished Frank Fukuyama's book on the "great disruption" of the sixties. The scope of this man's mind is almost beyond belief: he traverses socio-biology, business management, organizational behavior, economics, sociology, philosophy, and everything in-between. Here is my review of this ambitious, but successful book:

Fukuyama, Francis. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. NY: Free Press, 1999. 354 pp. ****. Dec 11. Fukuyama argues that the decline in social capital (trust, promise keeping, reciprocity, etc.) that the USA witnessed in the sixties was the inevitable result of the progressive forces of history: it was episodic in that the dislocations occasioned by the transition from industrial to post-industrial society created it (women, for instance, were more inclined to work in the new economy thus jarring family relations and contributing to the disruption). Crime, illegitimacy, and social breakdown were the result but, alas, this disruption was only that—temporary, and we are even now beginning to pull out of it since new moral norms are created to replace the old and humanity, both because of biology and self-interest (game theory) has the capacity to adjust and create the norms necessary to replenish the depleted social capital. He correctly notes that the “inevitable” and continuous decline after the sixties has already started to reverse. The astronomical crime, divorce, and illegitimacy rates began to stabilize in the 80s and then decline in the 90s. Hence, and this is the most telling part of the book, Fukuyama argues that politics and history are directional (see his book, The End of History), but that moral life is cyclical; that is, as history progresses, moral norms are destroyed by technology, capitalism, and growth, but they are refueled as humans adjust (after all, the nature of evolution is adaptation and why not have adaptation in the realm of morals?). This is a smart book! But obviously I have some qualms with the thesis. To treat moral decline as a trivial episode I think fails to do justice to the problem. Furthermore, the “adjustments” he talks about are certainly rooted more in the pendulum swinging back to old, forsaken morals (once we realize that throwing them away was a mistake) rather than the creation of new ones. Hence, we don’t move beyond biblical religious morals to new, more updated ones, we move back to the old ones, for these old morals cannot be improved upon and “improving” upon them was exactly what the “disruption” was all about. The sixties were not a case of people saying “hey, let’s have no morals” it was a case of people saying “hey, I don’t like these restrictive old morals so let’s create a new moral code of liberation and equality.” Fukuyama mistakes “no morals” for “new morals,” and fails to realize that “adjustments away from ‘no morals’” are actually a return to those that were sloughed and then re-discovered.

The Solution to Partisanship is....

2005-12-10T23:18:00.000-08:00

....a dose of humility. People get caught up in partisanship because they are more concerned with "their guy winning" or "being right" than they are about producing the best policy. Right now, this is what we need in response to Iraq. Republicans need to approach the situation in Iraq with freshness--that is, forgetting all about whether or not they voted for the war or supported it or "their guy" GW Bush took us into it. That is all irrelevant now. It is water under the bridge: A "Sunk Cost" as accountants say. Republicans need to stop trying to justify the war (which is appearing less justifiable every day) and calmly try to find solutions to the fix we are in. Of course, pride is driving the Republican self-destruction right now: so many of them supported the war based on faulty intelligence. This is an honest mistake, but a little humility would allow them to acknowledge this mistake instead of continuing to try to justify it by talking about "promoting democracy" and "ending dictatorship" etc. etc. Those were not original rationales for going to war and we can't slap them on ex-post-facto just to "make my position right." Humility means the ability to admit you were wrong. It's OK to be wrong: we all make mistakes; we are all human. Being perfect is too tall an order for politicians; being humble is not. We need politicians to swallow pride, admit mistakes and move forward (rather than continuously harping on the past). We need to slough the "my mistake was right no matter what" attitude and the "my guy was right no matter what attitude" and turn to the "what's best for my country?" attitude. Our only concern should be the best plausible future outcome given the current circumstances. This, of course, applies to Democrats as well.

Restricting Freedom of Speech

2005-12-08T01:22:00.000-08:00

This just further shows that most attempts to curb free speech, contrary to popular conceptions, come from the left, not the right. "Intolerance" is the great Shibboleth of the left, but irony rules here as far Lefties consistently show themselves to be the least tolerant of all peoples on the political spectrum. When was the last time that a left winger, no matter how outrageous the views, was stopped from speaking in any public location, or at a private gathering to which they were invited?

Perhaps a little Inflammatory, but...

2005-11-29T23:11:00.000-08:00

Boortz makes some great points about Bush's (yet again) disastrous policy proposal:

TRY AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT -- THOSE WERE EMPTY WORDS
Yesterday, George W. Bush strode to a podium in Tucson, Arizona (I love Tucson!) and against a backdrop of law enforcement officers, announced his latest plan to crack down on illegal aliens. There was nothing in his speech we haven't heard before, and his new immigration policy is just as contradictory as the old one. Among the initiatives announced:We should build more jail cells to hold illegal aliens. Good idea. The speeding up of deportations, a crackdown on fraudulent identity papers, and a hardening of the border with more surveillance. So far, so good. Then the nonsense started to flow. The president urged Congress to pass his guest-worker amnesty program and repeated the nonsense that the illegal aliens are here "to fill jobs that Americans will not do."Same old, same old. It is impossible to stand there and say you're going to crack down on illegal immigration while at the same time say that you are going to reward people who broke our immigration laws. The president says it's not amnesty. Ok, now we've finally caught the president in a lie. OF COURSE it's amnesty! When you tell someone who has broken the law that you are not only going to ignore their illegal conduct, but you are actually going to reward them for it, then you have more than plain old garden variety amnesty, you have amnesty with perks! As for the oft-repeated line that the illegal aliens fill jobs Americans won't, that's also a load. Companies may not be able to fill those jobs with Americans at the same low wages they pay Mexicans, but there are plenty of people in this country that would do the work at the right price. OK .. so the price of headless chickens, landscaping and construction might go up, but at least the people receiving those paychecks would be law-abiding residents of this country, most of whom would be citizens. There is something wrong with the idea of celebrating lower home prices when those lower prices are brought with disrespect for the laws of our country. It gets worse than that. We are threatening our very security by singing the praises of illegal aliens in our workforce. Just two weeks ago we were interviewing a Texas congressman who was telling us that U.S. intelligence agencies have knowledge that Al Qaeda terrorists have moved to Mexico, adopted Hispanic identities, learned the Spanish language, and then moved right into the United States across our porous borders.
George Bush failed to address the problem appropriately yesterday, but this isn't strictly a George Bush issue. There is absolutely no willingness on the part of either political party to crack down on illegal immigration. There are simply too many votes to be had in the Hispanic community. So as a result, our security as a nation is threatened and our cities and states are overrun with illegal aliens.I'm sure representatives of Al-Qaeda are preparing to apply for their guest-worker permits as we speak.

Prescription Drug Benefit

2005-11-29T22:52:00.000-08:00

The Prescription Drug Benefit was a disaster from the get go. What was Bush thinking? That if he outspent the democrats and beat them at their own game they would all turn around and love him? Ha! The hatred of Bush is so pronounced and so visceral, that he could inaugurate the socialist/godless/pacifist utopia they dream of and they would still spout the "Bush=fascist" nonsense they have been peddling for the past five years. People say Rove is a genius, but if he was advising this, he has less political sense than I do (and that is very little).

AI, cont.d had the following to say about this blunder:

"Well, the Journal had a bang-up weekend, didn’t it? This article on the new prescription drug entitlement is a must-read for the GOP.
Why is the drug benefit bad policy? Because in pushing for it, Bush was attempting to win over new support, and all he got was an exorbitantly expensive plan that didn’t win anyone over, and that alienated his base: a lose-lose situation.
If something is neither in the national interest nor of much appeal to party constituents, administrations would be well advised not to waste their clout doing it."

Finally Some Recognition that...

2005-11-23T12:52:00.000-08:00

The GOP May be in Trouble.

Movie Decline

2005-11-17T23:28:00.000-08:00

Since the box-office sluggishness this summer, Hollywood and the press have been speculating as to why people aren't going to movies as much. They suggest that the availability of DVD's and great big-screen TVs to watch movies on at home contribute to the decline as do the bother of having to put up with talking patrons, cell-phones ringing, crying children, gum on the floor, etc.

Now, I understand that any major industry (such as Hollywood) has sophisticated pricing techniques and so this is probably a dumb question, but isn't it possible that moviegoers are just revolting from high ticket prices? I can only speak for myself, but I personally love movies and love to go to movies. The gum on the floor does not keep me from going, nor does the ability to watch quality movies on quality equipment at home; there is something inimitable and unique about the cinema experience. However, I only go to movies at the theater about 2-3 times a year and the sole reason for this is ticket prices. I simply can't afford (and if I could, still wouldn't pay) $25 for tickets for my wife and I to see a movie. The movie experience is great, but not that great.

I can tell you with assurance that were tickets $6 dollars each instead of $12 each, I would probably attend 2-3 movies a month instead of 2-3 movies a year and Hollywood would be raking it in. But who am I to challenge the experts determining these things.

Perhaps, like in the healthcare industry, the technology "floor" has created a situation where all theaters need to have the latest in sound, visual, stadium seating, etc. and that this has driven prices up and ended up shooting itself in the foot.

Ominous Signs

2005-11-17T23:15:00.000-08:00

When that bete noire of libertarian conservatives, George Will, is lambasting the fiscal mess in Washington, you know it's bad:

"the limited-government impulse is a spent force in a Republican Party that cannot muster congressional majorities to cut the growth of Medicaid from 7.3 to 7 percent next year. That "cut" was too draconian for some Republican "moderates." But, then, most Republicans are moderates as that term is used by persons for whom it is an encomium: Moderates are people amiably untroubled by Washington's single-minded devotion to rent-seeking -- to bending government for the advantage of private factions."

Let us weep for the end of the brief, but glorious, Reagan era.

Historical Irony

2005-11-17T00:16:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago National Review celebrated its 50th anniversary with a gala in Washington D.C. Of course, William F. Buckley, Jr., the magazine's founder and the generally recognized founder of the conservative movement, was in attendance. Also there was none other than President Bush himself.
It is by no means impossible that future historians will look back at that event as the high point of contact between the man who gave birth to modern conservatism and the man who killed it.

I could not agree more

2005-11-15T01:01:00.000-08:00

Another frustrated "conservative" who echoes my long-held sentiments here. My only question, though, is why he voted for Bush in 2004? The President had shown his true colors long before then. Did this writer really think Bush would do a 180 after 2004?

% Growth in Govt. Spending

2005-10-26T23:20:00.000-07:00

Under Reagan (with a Democratic congress mind you) it was 2.6% per year
Under Clinton (with a Republican congress, mind you) it was 1.5% per year

Under that most liberal of all liberal presidents (who all good conservatives detest and whose policies they have spent the last forty years fighting and showing how they failed miserably and sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin that only Reagan himself could save us from), Lyndon Johnson, it was 5.7%

Here's the kicker. Are you ready?
Under George W. Bush (with a Republican congress, mind you) it is 7.1% (!!!!)

Anyone else outraged? Anyone wanna re-consider using the "conservative" label for ole' "W" and his congress?

Read more here.

I hate to Agree but...

2005-10-24T23:19:00.000-07:00

I must. Andrew Sullivan hit the nail on the head with this money quote:

"Bush has redefined conservatism into meaninglessness by legitimizing massive government spending for social policy. The left will take the 35 percent spending increase and up it. Then they'll raise taxes to pay for it. From their perspective, what's not to like? The left-liberal project and the Bush-conservative project are essentially the same: use the state to control and direct the actions of the citizenry, and wean them onto government aid. The only difference is that the constituencies that are the beneficiaries of other people's money are not identical; and the ideologies directing big government are not the same. I miss Clinton-Gingrich. It was, in retrospect, the high-water mark for conservatism as a governing philosophy."

It pains me to say "Amen." It also pains me to wish that those 2000 recounts would have found in favor of Gore in Florida (assuming he would have governed like Clinton and assuming that Republicans would have kept congress--both of which assumptions are likely).

Sowell on Immigration

2005-10-21T23:21:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell offers the most sensible analysis of illegal immigration I have yet seen here. The whole nonsense that is put forth by Bush and other Leftists is that we need illegal immigrants because there are jobs "Americans won't do." Excuse me? Are you telling me that there has never been an American who picked cabbage or done yard work? Are you serious?
Furthermore, the only reason Americans won't do these jobs is because the labor glut that illeglas bring to the country drives wages down. If the labor pool was kept constant, the supply would be lower and, hence, the price of labor (wage) would be higher: and yes, I would go out to Farmer Joe's cabbage patch right now and start picking away if he offered $50 an hour to do it.
Another thought: how can Bush tell us that unemployment is a "problem" in this country and then in the next breath tell us that illegals take jobs that Americans won't do. Doesn't "unemployed" status mean, by definition, that you want work but cannot find it? Have we really become so spoiled that "unemployed" means I want to work in the job of my dreams, but can't find it? If that's the case, consider 99% of the population unemployed. Hey Bush, here's an idea: send the national guard down to close the border tight and then require that all welfare recipients do all of those jobs that Americans "won't do." If they are really so poor and destitute that they are beyond hope, won't these welfare recipients jump at the chance? Oh, their dignity would be threatened you say? Where is the dignity in receiving a check from uncle sam for doing absolutely nothing? I can't think of anything more undignified than living as a leech on society. Sounds like a good "kill-two-birds-with-one-stone" measure to me.

NYTimes with some Sanity

2005-10-21T22:04:00.000-07:00

This piece expresses as concisely as could be hoped for the ridiculousness of the defenses that leftist academics offer for the paucity of dissenting political viewpoints on campus. This article has my full, complete, and unqualified "dittos." You must also read Thomas Reeve's piece here that does an admirable job of saying similar things and dispensing with the inevitable nonsense about "academics being liberal because liberalism correlates with intelligence."

Bork on Bush

2005-10-19T23:13:00.000-07:00

Even conservative icon Robert Bork is now turning on Bush:

[The Miers] nomination has split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues into those appalled by the administration's cynicism and those still anxious, for a variety of reasons, to support or at least placate the president. Anger is growing between the two groups. The supporters should rethink. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough."

This is what Bush has done to his friends. By governing as the most liberal president in recent history, he has done irreparable damage to the country. If Bork sees it, my only hope is that others will as well.

Symbols over Substance

2005-10-11T23:16:00.000-07:00

The current political arena represents the triumph of symbol over substance. By that I mean that people care less today about what a politician actually does and how that squares with their political philosophy than what he represents.

This is true of both the left and the right. Clinton, while a fairly conservative president (and compared to the current socialist in the White House, a VERY conservative president), was, interestingly, vociferously attacked by those on the Right and defended with equal vigor by those on the left. Why? If Clinton did very few "liberal" things and did so many "conservative" things, why did Lefties like Robert Reich go out of their way to defend him while conservatives like Rush Limbaugh made every effort to destroy him? You would have thought they would have both taken a more moderate tone towards Clinton because he was a moderate president. The answer, of course, lies in what Clinton symbolized: womanizing, dishonesty, disengenuousness, and a liberal/permissive background--the sixties generation incarnate. Hence, Clinton was attacked and vilified for his symbolic posture.

Now, the trend, of course, continues, and has even intensified, under GW Bush. He is a very liberal president, something that liberals should be happy about, but, of course, they can't be happy about it because he represents the red-state, ignoramus, gun-toting, God-loving Texan that they can't stand. His IMAGE is what counts to the Bush-haters, not the substance of his policies (how could the oppose a doubling of the federal education budget--isn't that their approach to everything: throw money to make the problem go away?). Conservatives, on the other hand, should be furious with Bush's profligacy, but they defend him as a semi-deity. why? Again, he represents what they love about America even if, in practice, he goes against almost all of these things.

My personal opinion about this state of affairs is that it's unhealthy for the Republic. True progress is made when people debate the issues and come up with solutions rather than exchange vitriol over symbols.

Miers: the wakeup call

2005-10-09T12:44:00.000-07:00

Bush sold out conservatism a long time ago. It just took something like the despicable Harriet Miers nomination to finally get conservatives to wake up from their starry-eyed Bush-worshipping and realize that this guy is bad news and has been since 2002. In a sense, then, the Miers nomination, while unfortunate, might serve the greater good of getting the country to wake up to this glaring fact that both the right and the left have ignored for too long: President Bush has redefined conservatism for the worse.

Read more here.

An Apt Comparison

2005-10-08T23:10:00.000-07:00

Previously, I have caustically compared president Bush to Lyndon Baines Johnson. Some might think I'm just being cute, but let's look at the factual comparisons between the two men.

1. TAX CUTS: Both cut taxes right after taking office. These tax cuts targeted the most productive members of society and thus, indeed, created economic recoveries in which a "rising tide lifted all boats."
2. QUAGMIRE WAR: Both involved the country in a messy eastern-hemisphere war that grew increasingly unpopular during their second terms and sparked massive anti-war protests. Each war was undertaken for dubious reasons and difficult to extricate the country from.
3. BIG GOVERNMENT: Both expanded domestic spending in very big ways and adhered to the fallacy that government can make people "compassionate." Each man demonstrated how charitable he was by throwing billions and billions of other people's money into failed causes that bloated the size of government and, eventually, created massive deficits. Each, thus, vastly eroded our freedom which is predicated upon the principle of limited government.
4. DOMESTIC ANARCHY: Meanwhile, while both presidents were creating new programs and throwing money at problems that the government should not be in the business of solving, huge domestic problems sprang up that they failed to deal with (Watts and other race riots, hurricane Katrina). They were so worried about doing things the government should not be doing that they failed to do the basic things the government SHOULD have been doing (preventing looting, anarchy, and violence in our cities). Each was so fixated on doing things like paying artists to urinate on crucifixes, that they failed to save people dying of thirst in the middle of a destroyed city.

Now, the above are just the most glaring, tangible, substantive policy issues on which the two presidents align so nicely. This is not to mention hundreds of smaller policy similarities, or the personal ones (such as their both being Texans or their penchant for cronyism).
However, the bottom line is this: George W. Bush, in every policy way, is acting more like Lyndon Baines Johnson than any other president in history. If we wanted to say "which two presidents behaved most alike during their two terms," the answer would undoubtedly be these two. The irony here, though, is that conservatism was formed in reaction against everything LBJ represented. Now conservatism has become LBJ and thus, every true conservative's worst nightmare. Those Bush-worshippers who continue to applaud the president need to take their blinders off and come around to this realization: conservatism has morphed into its own worst enemy.

British Cons finally coming around too

2005-10-08T22:48:00.000-07:00

This from The Business, a British conservative newspaper:

"This newspaper is second to none in its pro-American sentiments; in the early Bush years it devoted much ink to defending the President against the often malevolent and ignorant attacks of a congenitally anti-American European media. But we know a lost cause when we see one: the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs – all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed America’s post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamt of. As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed in the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage." Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Bush passes Johnson

2005-10-05T22:01:00.000-07:00

Yup, that's right. It's official: our current President now holds the distinction of being the biggest big-government president in history. That is according to a number of criteria that the Cato institute have been using for years. See the statistics here.

For years, conservatives have rightly looked back with disgust at the Johnson administration as an era when a Leftist/quasi-socialist president believed that any problem had just one answer: big government. Is there poverty? Throw money at it and it will go away. Kids aren't learning in school? Make it a federal issue and throw billions at it and it will go away. People aren't properly "cultured" like elitist artists and intellectuals think they should be? Create a government program, throw money at it and the problem will go away.
Uncle Sam, said Johnson, can solve any problem in society by pumping taxpayer dollars into the cause.

Once upon a time, conservatives denounced politicians who thought this way and showed the flaws in their thinking. But now that George W. Bush has taken Johnson's place as Dr. Spend-it-all, where's the outrage?

Now, the disgusting thing here is that Johnson (unlike Bush) might be forgiven for doing what he did. After all, he did not have a fresh-in-the-mind historical example of how throwing money at problems inevitably fails and, if we are to trust some good analysis by Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell, it actually makes the problems it intends to solve worse.

Johnson was a big spender because he was a Leftist and the congress he was working with was Left-wing. Why does it not outrage people that Bush has now surpassed Johnson in big-government credentials while calling himself "conservative" and working with an ostensibly "conservative" congress?

Had Bush and the Republicans simply "not done anything" to cut government spending during the last five years, that would be bad enough. With the presidency and both houses of congress in "conservative" hands, we would rightly decry a HUGE missed opportunity. Had Bush and the Republicans increased spending slightly, that would be much much worse: how could we tolerate not only wasting an opportunity to cut government back, but actually extending it?
But the reality is infinitely worse: we have to face the absurd FACT that Bush and the Republicans have not only failed to cut spending or even increase spending marginally (or even substantially) but that with "conservatives" controlling government, the size and scope of government has expanded more than at any other time in this nation's history! This is a tragedy of epic proportions that we will be paying for (literally) for years to come.

PS: some who I point this out to seek to justify the increased spending by saying, "well, Bush cut taxes so he's still a small government guy." Sorry, not only is the logic bad here, but if you are going to give anyone who cuts taxes a pass on the big government stuff, then you can never criticize LBJ again. Remember, he was the one who enacted the huge income tax cut that spurred growth in the sixties (true), but caused the terrible economic stagnation of the seventies when the big-government drag caught up to us (along with the tax increases needed to pay for them). The worst news of all is that Next time we won't have the Gipper to bail us out of the mess that a big-government president created.

Conservatism in Trouble

2005-10-03T23:24:00.000-07:00

The meaning of "conservative" seems to be undergoing some major changes at present. When I posed the question "what is a conservative" to people ten years ago, they would invariably reply that a conservative was one who believed in small government. That was the essence of "conservative." Now, however, our current president symbolizes conservatism and the term "conservative" increasingly refers to whatever he does, and what he does may or may not have any connection to "conservative" in the old sense or even classical (Burkean) sense.

With the Bush-worshippers now defining "conservative" as whatever the holy sacrosanct and almighty Bush does, many of us are now being called by the nasty epithet "liberal." Andrew Sullivan, for instance, points out the following:
"I am now and long have been for small government, low taxes, a balanced budget, welfare reform, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, a flat tax, states' rights, and an increase in defense spending. I believe abortion and affirmative action are immoral and would have voted in dissent on Roe vs Wade. I'm a believing Christian. Right now, that makes you a "prominent liberal." Think for a minute what that says about what conservative orthodoxy has now become. "

Dittos for me as I have the same positions and am getting the same flack from many current "conservatives" (read: defenders of Bush and everything he does).

I do not lament this co-opting of the term "conservative" by the Bush-worshippers. I welcome it. It is time that the term "liberal" returned to its origins, the origins given it by the greatest political thinkers of all time--e.g. John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson. If believing in small government makes ME a liberal, so be it, for it also made the three above luminaries liberals as well. I am happy in their company and much prefer it to the Bush/Delay/Santorum triumvirate of modern "conservative" fame.

Bartlett on Bush

2005-09-29T00:40:00.000-07:00

The outrage is growing. Read here.

Also, compare that "liberal" Clinton's spending to the "conservative" Bush's spending on graphs here.

Apologists for Lyndon Baines Bush

2005-09-28T23:01:00.000-07:00

Many of my "conservative" friends try to defend Bush's absolutely horrific record as the biggest government spending president in history (with one sole ignominious exception...see post title) saying that "it's necessary to compromise in order to achieve the greater good," meaning, fight the war in Iraq (whether or not this constitutes the "greater good" is a whole other debate for another time), but Mark Steyn concisely wrote why that logic won't work. Basically, Bush bows out of taking responsibility for anything important in this country (invasion from the south) claiming "there's no resources to stop it" and yet he has billions of dollars in resources to throw at any pet program or pork barrell project that passes his desk. He still has yet to veto a spending bill. This is outrageous. Republicans need to get mad. Their party has been hijacked by virtual socialists--that is, people who believe big government solves everything. Bush goes on and on about "promoting freedom abroad" while doing a darn good job of destroying it here at home. Either conservatives believe that the basis of freedom is limited government or they don't. Either their actions need to catch up to their rhetoric, or they need to admit the uncomfortable truth: there are now two parties in this country that beleive throwing money (not theirs, mind you, YOURS) at problems will make them go away.

Noonan on Bush's Spending Problem

2005-09-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

The President, as everybody knows, had a "drinking problem" earlier in his life. We think he conquered that addiction, but he has a new one: spending. Now, this is a bad addiction, and many of irresponsible Americans have it. They go on spending binges and buy frivolous things with little lasting value and find themselves broke at the end of the day promising to do better next time...oh, uh, one big difference--Bush's spending problem is not with his own money. It is with yours.

Peggy Noonan said the following:
"I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.
I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

I wish Bush and congress would learn this lesson. Our freedom is threatened and the one party that used to protect our freedom is now the one driving us straight into the abyss of fiscal insanity. Read the rest here.

There they go again

2005-09-24T00:28:00.000-07:00

The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay recently decided not to sponsor (with taxpayer money--it's a public university) an art display that calls killing President Bush an act of patriotism and refers (of course) to the U.S. as the world's greatest terrorist state. Predictably, student radicals and faculty appeared and rioted, protesting in the strongest language possible against this base act of "censorship."

So let me get this straight. Since the taxpayers of Green Bay don't want to fund a display that advocates political assassination and anti-Christianity, they are thereby "censoring" it? So we "censor" whatever we don't support? This fantastic display of illogic underscores the very dismal situation our universities are in. They teach students to march in demonstrations, to shout down those they don't agree with, and spout radical platitudes, but to make a simple logical connection is quite beyond their intellectual capacity.

When are these people going to learn that not supporting something and suppressing it are two entirely different things. Did you go see that awful-looking movie the Dukes of Hazzard when it came out a few months ago? No? Well niether did I, and therefore we have "censored" that movie since not supporting something and censoring it are the same thing. Is the government paying to have Mormon scriptures displayed and promoted in public space? No? Then they are, according to our bright friends at UWGB, "censoring" Mormons and taking away their freedom of religion. The absurd illustrations could be multiplied many times here, but I won't. Such demonstrations of idiocy exhaust me. Goodnight.

Happy Spender II

2005-09-22T00:16:00.000-07:00

Good quote from "prudent bear":

"For all of the talk of the President’s radical foreign policy, an even more remarkable metamorphosis has taken place domestically: The Republican Party has come full circle from, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" to an acceptance of the primacy of government responsibility for all things."

They then provide a sketch of some Bush giveaways:

"The 2001 No Child Behind Act, the most expensive education bill in American history, which led to a 100 percent increase in education spending;
The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, the most expensive farm bill in American history;
The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the most expensive Great Society expansion in history;
A war in and the rebuilding of Iraq that, while justified, could cost between $300 and $600 billion, in total;
International spending leap 94 percent;
Housing and Commerce spending surge 86 percent;
Community and regional development spending jump 71 percent;
Health research spending increase 61 percent;
Veterans’ spending increase 51 percent; and
The number of annual pork projects leap from 6,000 to 14,000"

Bush: Happy Spender of Your Money

2005-09-22T00:13:00.000-07:00

As Stephen moore pointed out in the WSJ yesterday, the $200 Billion dollars of compassionate conservatism that Bush is throwing at New Orleans is sufficient to purchase a $400,000 beachfront home for every single family affected by the disaster. Compassion indeed.

Good advice for college students

2005-09-20T21:33:00.000-07:00

Go over to Moonbat Central and have a look at their hints for college students. NOt much to disagree with there.

Just when you think Bush couldn't get any worse...

2005-09-15T23:37:00.000-07:00

He does.
Andrew Sullivan expresses why nicely here:

"SPENDING YOUR WAY OUT OF TROUBLE: I think it's pretty clear that's the Bush administration's fundamental response to Katrina. The key test of their responsibility will be if they cut spending elsewhere to come up with $200 billion. But they won't. Guns and butter - borrowed from us, the next generation and the Chinese government. I really didn't believe that the president would actually spend more of other people's money in his second term than in the first. But he looks set to pull it off. Peggy Noonan says we need a debate about conservatism. Here's a starter: fiscal conservatism as we have known it is over. No liberal Democrat would ever have managed to spend as much and as incompetently as this administration. Even in opposition, the GOP would have mounted a defense of the country's fiscal standing against such reckless big government liberalism. But in power, the only difference between the GOP and, say, a Ted Kennedy administration is that the Republican free spending goes to different interest groups, has no restraint or domestic opposition, and rests on borrowing rather than taxing. Yes, Katrina reconstruction is inevitable and important. But $200 billion doesn't grow on trees. Where is it going to come from? Part of the point of fiscal responsiblity, after all, is that disasters do happen and the government should have fiscal lee-way to respond to them. But we have no lee-way at all, thanks to this president and his party. Tonight, the president will try and rescue himself politically by spending money he doesn't have. As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, the only thing socialists are good at is spending other people's money. That's the one thing this president has known how to do - whether it was daddy's money or yours."

The Moral vs. the Political

2005-09-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

Both political parties (Republicans and Democrats) and, increasingly, both ideologies (Conservatives and Liberals) rest on one big fallacy. This fallacy unites them more than it divides them and is manifest in nearly every piece of legislation that is signed off on these days. The fallacy is that of equating the moral and the political.

Both parties think that if something is immoral, it should likewise be illegal. Correspondingly, both parties believe that if something is moral, it should get government support.

So there you have it. Conservatives are often Bible-believing Christians. The Bible says that homosexuality is immoral. Conclusion? Make homosexuality illegal. Such is their reasoning.

Liberals see greed as immoral. Solution. Confiscate wealth from all people to take away their freedom to be greedy. Such is their reasoning.

The Conservatives and liberals are united in their philosophy, they only differ in how their philosophy should be carried out; that is, they don't disagree that the moral and political should be one and the same, only WHICH morals should be political.

This is the destructive two-sides-of-the-same-coin game that current politics have become. If only somebody could remind a politician that when it comes to politics, freedom (not morality) is what we are after. Indeed, it is only within the context of freedom that morality can be chosen and thereby be truly moral.

Furthermore, ultimately, if a peole is left free, the good will almost always result. Religiously free people are more likely to go to church (don't believe me? Look at the church attendance statistics for those countries that have state-supported religion and then compare them to ours in the U.S.). Economically free people are more likely to give charitably (don't believe me? look at the massive increase in charitable giving during the Reagan era, the supposed "decade of greed.")

If only our politicians could get this straight.

Must Read By Ross Douthat

2005-09-14T23:03:00.000-07:00

You MUST READ this post by Ross Douthat over at The American Scene. He continues the conversation about the Ferguson piece (surprising how much controversy that thing stirred up) and adds much more too it. I think he fails to make the point directly (although he does it indirectly) to show that "conservatism" achieved its "victories" by simply abandoning its conservative principles themselves. Here we have the Right rejoicing and gloating about all of their wins and ideological victories, and yet, as Douthat points out, there are no actual victories, only nominal ones. Conservative "victories" should not be measured by how many Republicans win election, because Republicans can (and lately very often do) do very unconservative things. We should judge "conservative" success by actual conservative legislation that is passed. The record there, in spite of all of the republican victories in recent years, is almost nil. In other words, the "victories" of conservatism, as Ferguson and Douthat are rightly calling to our attention, are hollow victories indeed.

Conservative Decay

2005-09-14T22:52:00.000-07:00

No, it's not the same old lament this time that Bush has destroyed conservatism by making it an imperialist big-government ideology. rather, this time it comes from a defender of President Bush, Andrew Ferguson. Writing in the weekly standard, he laments the debasement of conservative culture. Indeed so. I have long decried the shrill voices on the right who refuse to engage in thoughtful reasoning and instead use the name-calling and talkover tactics that really should have no place in the public sphere (ah...hem...Michael Savage). Read the piece here.

Naturalism and Freedom

2005-09-12T22:26:00.000-07:00

I have previously noted the importance of distinguishing between positive and negative freedom. That is, freedom is defined as the absence of constraint. However, we can either be constrained by nature, or by our fellow human beings. For instance, I am not free to fly like a bird because nature has not given me wings--I am limited and constrained in this way. Likewise, if somebody comes into my house and kidnaps me, I am not free because my liberty has been taken away. Since freedom from the constraints others is ours in the original state of nature, this is the freedom that governments are designed to protect. Furthermore, if governments get into the business of freeing us from the constraints of nature, they inevitably take the resources to achieve this goal from others, thus violating their rights to be free from he constraints of others. Freedom is maximized when the state confines itself to keeping us free from the constraints of others. Freedom from the constraints of nature is impossible and can only be achieved partially by individual effort, but I no more have a "right" to fly like a bird than I have a "right" to be free of the law of gravity.

Now, one can understand why naturalists and atheists are so likely to collapse the distinction between kinds of freedom. Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, the great evolutionary biologist, embraced Marxism, claiming that those who are limited in their economic power (a constraint of nature) are not free and the state should secure this for every man woman and child. Why would an atheistic evolutionary biologist be more likely to believe there is no distinction between the constraints of nature and the constraints of other human beings? Because the whole premise and conclusion of evolutionary biology is that there is no qualitative distinction between humans and nature. To say "nature did this to me" or "man did this to me" is to say the same thing. Humans, to Gould and his ilk, are mere cogs in the machinery of the natural world--outgrowths of a chance process called evolution and not fundamentally distinct from Monkeys, Zebras, Amoebas, or even dust for that matter. Humans just happen to have atoms configured arbitrarily in a different way (a way that is no better or worse, just different and determined wholly by chance). This reinforces the view that once people lose religious perspective, they inevitably lose the respect for humanity as humanity. Once this perspective is lost, the true meaning of freedom is lost and tyrants can enslave and kill entire populations and continue to insist they are fighting for freedom, because theirs is a "freedom" of a different kind.

Fukuyama on Iraq

2005-09-06T17:16:00.000-07:00

In the New York Times, Frank Fukuyama provides an interesting synopsis of the history of U.S. foreign policy since Sep. 11th. Read it here.

Lit Journal Sep 1

2005-09-01T22:33:00.000-07:00

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century. NY: Scribner’s, 1993. 240 pp. ****. Sep 1, 2005. A pre-Huntington book with virtually the same thesis, however, he spends much more time lamenting the death-toll of utopian experiments (metamyths”) and lamenting American moral decline which he sees as our undoing. Metamyths of coercive utopias filled the void of religion, he claims, because a moral vacuum is chaos, and this is what we face. We have gone from metamyths to a “permissive cornucopia” society that generates the same indifference. We went from the threat of total control (totalitarianism) to no control (relativism). This produces material desires and the eponymous “out of control society” based on groundless postmodern relativism. He gives impressive grueling details and statistics about the horrific consequences of 20th century communism. He sees the world growing increasingly unequal and conflict ridden as posthumanity grows and wealth grows in certain countries and not others, producing widespread resentment and national/ethnic clashes. He specifically predicts the increasing resentment of Islam against the west and even makes reference to Huntington’s thesis in a footnote (since SPH’s article was only in manuscript, which Brzezinski read, at the time of publication). He believes China will represent this and symbolize poor-nation aspirations. He sees roughly six global “regional clusters” that approximate Huntington’s eight “civilizations.” Solution: seek to infuse values into society, but this must come from within. Cultures ned an enhanced moral consciousness: restraint that comes from within (because communism showed that coercion won’t work). WE must also transcend the nation state and the U.S. must lead a trilateral group with Japan and Europe to increase the U.N. role. Ultimately, though, this book was filled with banal ideas couched in instruction-manual language that made the book choppy and tough to read. Z has a strange gift of being unable to state simple things directly or articulate general conclusions. He is as adept at presenting ideas as the rest of us are at pronouncing his name.

Friedman, Murray. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 303 pp. ****. Sep 1. Perhaps the best book yet on the neocons. Pays particular attention to their Jewishness and sees all actions through this lens. Argues that Neocons had a major impact in pulling the nation (both Jews and non-Jews) rightward. Particularly focuses on the Reagan years, and less on the early CCNY stuff. Talks about their leftist beginnings in New York, their Jewish pre-cursors on the right, the journey towards liberalism, the split in Liberalism over anti-communism, their subsequent move right and articulation of this move in Commentary and the Public Interest, the founding of the conservative movement, their grafting into this movement, their support for Reagan and his Nicaragua policy, their reluctant support for capitalism, their war against the counterculture, their ambivalent relationship to the religious right, and finally their role in the Bush administration today.

American Interest

2005-08-31T22:42:00.000-07:00

The much anticipated American Interest magazine (composed of defectors from the neocon National Interest) has launched today. Have a look at it here. The All-Stars on the editorial board (Niall Ferguson, etc.) should catch our attention as should the noteworthy contributors (e.g. Sen. Lieberman). Have a look!

Lowry's Right On

2005-08-24T22:40:00.000-07:00

Over at the Corner, Rich Lowry had this to say about Bush and his job performance numbers:

"The president's job approval ratings aren't looking so great lately: 36%, ARG; 40% Harris; 45% Rasmussen. I'm prepared to believe that all these polls are flawed for some reason or other, but it's clear that he's sagging. To which I have a brilliant solution, advanced in this column. Why not come out in favor of something that's popular? We all know leadership is about ignoring the polls, doing hard things, etc., but if your main initiatives are the war in Iraq and Social Security, and people don't particularly like either, eventually you are going to be in political trouble. Which appears to be what is happening. Now I believe Bush can boost the numbers on Iraq somewhat (and should try), but he's basically a captive of events there. It's on the border that he has an opportunity. He could align himself with about 70% of the public by sponsoring a border crackdown, not to mention begin to do his duty of enforcing our immigration laws. This seems an obvious play to me. Instead, he will likely stick to his quasi-amnesty and guest-worker proposals. You have to give Bush credit--he's the absolute opposite of Clinton. Clinton was in favor of small, popular things. Bush apparently likes to be in favor of big, unpopular things"

Amen. Immigration reform is something that both parties are paralyzed with regards to. Democrats are completely beholden to a tiny minority special interest group. They would rather the crime rate in this country increase 25% rather than appear to be in the slightest way "insensitive" to a minority (illegals) of a minority (Mexican immigrants) of a minority (Mexican-Americans). This is silly, but no sillier than the Republicans who would rather have the crime rate in this country increase 25% than actually say anything negative about Bush. Heaven forbid! They must continue the sham that Bush is Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Moses put together in a flawless Texan package of a man who can do no wrong. Wake up, Republicans...Bush is a disaster and is hardly a conservative by any except a strange neocon standard. Wake up, Democrats...you can reclaim the presidency and both houses of congress by merely enforcing the law: "CLOSE the BORDER!"

Lit Journal August 23

2005-08-23T21:39:00.000-07:00

Nash, George H. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, Since 1945. NY: Basic Books, 1976. ****. Aug 23. Better the third time around. The classic work on conservative intellectual history. Many names are dropped, but each becomes more familiar with each reading. Nash’s greatest weakness is that he lacks a guiding theme and fails to present a clear-cut thesis. He nuances his way out of saying anything with certainty. However, his organizing triad of libertarianism, traditionalism, and anti-communism remains standard and has yet to be superceded.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Eisenhower: Soldier and President. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990. ****. Aug 05. One of the best bios I have read in a long time. It places Ike in his context, but without straying too far into contemporary history. It also celebrates Ike as a “great and good man,” not a popular thing to do these days when writing biography. Aren’t we supposed to be “explaining” our biographical subjects' behavior rather than extolling it? Ambrose doesn’t think so (at least not entirely) and that is refreshing. I concur with virtually his whole approach and almost all of his conclusions. He presents the man fully, with all of the complexity, but without simplifying or glossing over anything. In spite of the warts, Ike emerges as a heroic individual. I got bogged down in a little of the minutiae of presidential politics, but I liked the texture and contours of his personal life.

Nixon, Richard. Beyond Peace. New York: Random House, 2004. 264 pp. ***+. Aug 05. Very ex-presidential book in that it is Self-congratulatory and aphoristic in tone. Nixon makes a strong conservative case for domestic policies, but is hypocritical since he didn’t follow much of it. He makes trite foreign policy suggestions such as “we should cultivate relationships with China,” but otherwise gives interesting overviews of world regions and bits of autobiography that I found interesting.

Dembski, William, ed. Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. Wilmington: ISI Books, 2004. ***+. Aug 05. Mundane, essays I had already read and arguments already heard (or intuitively known, like circularity and non-falsifiability). However, Jay Budziewski’s article was brilliant and inspired as usual. The biologists often delved into esotericism, but the philosophers and literary folks spoke plainly about the common problems. One section included rebuttals to Berlinski’s Commentary articles, which seemed more convincing than the article itself. However, this may have to do more with my distaste for Berlinski’s writing than the content itself.

Wolfe, Gregory, ed. Right Minds: A Sourcebook of American Thought. New York: Regnery, 1987. ****. Aug 05. A full scale bibliography as well as a compendium of short biographies of major figures in conservatism (both modern and early American).

Cantor, Norman. The American Century: Varieties of Culture in Modern Times. NY: HarperCollins, 1997. ****. Aug 05.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Choice: Global Domination of Global Leadership. NY: Basic Books, 2004. ***. Aug 05. It’s prescriptions for foreign policy were vague and banal. However, it drew on some good quotes from others (like Clinton) that were very telling of America’s evolving place in the world

William J. Rorabaugh, Donald T. Critchlow, Paula Baker. America’s Promise: A Concise History of the United States, Vol II. NY: Rowan And Littlefield, 2004. ***+. August 8, 2005. Not a great text or even a good one, but in spite of its flaws, inadequacies, and misinterpretations, this is one of the very few history texts that actually attempts objectivity. They, of course, do not achieve it and the Leftist bias is there, but the reader can tell that they try and even claim (GASP!) that Alger Hiss was in fact guilty and that the Reagan tax cuts produced prosperity. I assigned this text to my class for that reason and for the shorter length of the chapters so that they could have quality instead of just quantity reading.

Nadel, Laurie. The Great Stream of History: A Biography of Richard Nixon. Athenium, 1991. 220 pgs. ***. August 1, 2005. A short biography written for a younger audience, and this made it perfect for someone like me who is hesitant to tackle those eight volume biographies about U.S. presidents. However, the book turned out to be just a hatchet job, excoriating Nixon and making the obligatory comparisons to Adolph Hitler (Oh, of course) and every other tyrant in history. Yes, Nixon was flawed, but by comparing any American president, no matter how evil, to Adolph Hitler, immediately tips the reader off to the attempts at sensationalism and partisanship. Leave the Hitler stuff to Michael Savage and Moveon.org, not the realm of history writing, especially for a young audience.

Neil Jumonville, Henry Steele Commager: Midcentury Liberalism and the History of the Present. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1999. ***+. Jumonville’s analysis was uninspired and too often lapsed into hero worship. There was something reflexive about this work that made it distasteful—an intellectual history by an intellectual historian about an intellectual historian doing intellectual history. Clearly, Jumonville believes himself a follower of Commager who can, like him, climb to the status of revered “public intellectual” and promote the nobility of the liberal cause in the U.S.A.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. A Life in the 20th Century: Innocent Beginnings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. 684 pgs. ****. This book was much better the second time around. Many of Schlesinger’s double standards are again presented. For instance, he denounces “conservatives” for wanting to regulate all aspects of American life except for economics, but fails to point out his own contradiction: of wanting to leave all aspects of American life alone except economics. Either way, both sides of the divide have contradictions and fail to fully promote freedom when it doesn’t fit their agenda. His bravery in crossing his fellow intellectuals over communism is commendable, though, as is his unflinching devotion to capitalism (however attenuated by the inroads of the welfare state). Nevertheless, the name dropping was as fun for me as it doubtless was for him and, as an historian, I was fascinated by his narrative about the production of his masterpiece, The Age of Jackson. I eagerly await the next two (?) volumes.

Reeves' Best Post Yet

2005-08-21T11:52:00.000-07:00

Please read this piece by Thomas Reeves. He articulates much more clearly than I themes that I have been promoting on this site from the beginning.

More on Romney

2005-08-08T20:59:00.000-07:00

Friday, David Brooks gave a talk to the Young American's Foundation. He was asked what he thought about 2008 Presidential candidates on the REpublican side. He said there were no good conservatives, only moderates such as McCain, Giuliani, etc. He did, however, point out that there was one excellent conservative candidate...Mitt Romney, but pointed out that his Mormonism could be a major obstacle to the bigoted wing of the party.

Likewise, the newest issue of the Atlantic, out today, also had an article praising Mitt's charisma, "aw shucks" sincerity, and political savy. But they also pointed out his Mormonism as one of the big M's he would have to overcome to get the nomination (the other being Massachussetts).

Lit journal

2005-08-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a summary of the books I've finished in the past few weeks, along with a rating (one to five stars *)

Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy (NY: Basic Books, 1995): 305. ****.
Sowell, with characteristic cogency, exposes the vision of the anointed and contrasts it with reality.
He shows that the anointed (government, media, and intellectual elites) care little about reality and about how their policies work in practice,
rather, they are concerned with a vision that must be upheld for moral reasons come hell or high water.
It's, as usual for Sowell, a tour de force, and hard to argue with. I must confess, though, that his style is highly logical and dense. This does
not mean it is difficult to comprehend his message, but rather, reading his books is not a pleasure, but feels like reading a textbook.

Peter Shaw, The War Against the Intellect: Episodes in the Declne of Discourse (Iowa City: University of Iowa PRess, 1989): 181. ***+. This selection of Shaw's essays from journals of opinion (the American Scholar, Partisan Review, commentary, etc.) argues against the decline of academic standards. His focus on literature, though, and his lofty prose style bored me. The best parts of the book were the introduction and epilogue which showed the logical contradictions of those who have invaded the academy and worked tirelessly to destroy the intellect.

John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals in Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994 (Yale UP, 1995): 241. ****. Fascinating look at the evolution of Neocons away from Trotskyism and liberalism through the lens of their take on foreign policy. The main protagonist, though, remains Daniel Patrick Moynihan, although substantial attention is given to other neocons like Podhoretz and Kirkpatrick.

John T. Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974. NY: Oxford UP, 1996. 892pp. ***+. Fair w/ a slight liberal bent, but recognizes failures of those policies and attempts to understand the conservative point of view, especially w/regard to Robert Taft and the anti-radicals of the sixties. Overly focused on race, though.

Taylor's Visit

2005-08-05T15:59:00.000-07:00

We would like to welcome Cousin Taylor who will be guest blogging today!

Relativists

2005-07-28T19:53:00.000-07:00

Two observations:
1) I have met thousands of people in my life who claim to be cultural/moral/epistemological relativists

2) I have never met a cultural/moral/epistemological relativist.

Contradiction? No. Nearly every intellectual, in order to prove their level of "sophistication" claims that they are above the "naivete" of thinking that one cultural/moral or rational system is superior to any other. That's just "burgeoise hegemony" they say.

When I hear somebody proving their sophistication thus, I normally pose a simple question to them thus: "was what Hitler did wrong?"

Could they really say that rounding up human beings based on an arbitrary racial category, throwing them into ovens and exterminating them like termites is "just another culture" and that "we can't judge it?" I have yet to meet anyone who would answer "yes" to this question. I hope I never do.

In the end, claims to relativism is just a way to "keep up with the Joneses" in the academic world. Since everybody who is anybody claims to be relativist, I must as well if I want to be respected in academe. They all claim it, but nobody believes it. It's a convenient rhetorical ace card to play strategically. It has no validity and doesn't work. Time to put an end to the nonsense.

Credo II

2005-07-27T16:56:00.000-07:00

-Power is not automatically evil. Often it is evil, if ill gotten or used to oppress,But let's face it, power comes to those who live in accordance with natural law. Deferred pleasure allows one to accumulate wealth (power). Personal restraint allowsone to liberate themselves from vice and addictive constrains, thus empowering themselves. Hard Work and diligence in schooland job allow one to rise to positions of prominence and obtain knowledge (power). ONeway or another, power is often the result of virtue not vice and for people like Zinnto have their credo: "fight the powerful" is dogmatic and dangerous. The powerful shouldonly be fought if they are using their power unjustly (and making a profit does not make someone unjust) or if they obtained their power unjustly (like Stalinists, WardChurchill or Zinn himself). Might does not make right, but right usually makes might.

PBS MUST GO!

2005-07-26T19:12:00.000-07:00

The case is laid out very clearly here. There is no rational reason to continue to support public broadcasting of any kind. I have yet to hear a reasoned defense of the current system, only emotional outcries about "caring" (about the arts, children, etc.), but no reason is ever given why it is "caring" to subsidize the wealthy in this country who are the only ones who watch PBS.

More Leftist Censorship

2005-07-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

Read more about the Left-wing propensity to censor here. It's ironic that they speak the most about free speech and also do the most to stifle it. I wouldn't be quite so upset if Leftist intellectuals simply admitted the obvious: that they are the most intolerant of all peoples in American society and that they will try, by force, to stop any viewpoints they dislike from ever being voiced. However, they continue with the canard that they are promoting "free speech", but calling censorship free speech does not change what it is.

Trying to censor those who oppose you, to me, is a bright indicator that you are not very confident of your beliefs. As JS Mill and other philosophers of liberty have shown, we should never fear a discussion of all viewpoints since the correct viewpoint will emerge from this marketplace of ideas, but those who suspect that the truth won't bear them out and that their ideas won't win do two things: 1) stop other viewpoints from being voiced (just go to any university campus in America and you will see what I mean) and 2) deny that truth exists (again, just go to any university campus in America and you will see what I mean). To me, this just lets me know that the Left is not very confident in their views and know the truth might not be friendly to them, but if their ideology or the truth has to go, you know which one it is.

Romney: the best candidate

2005-07-21T17:26:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney is by far the best candidate among the Republican contenders in 08' for a number of reasons:

1) Regional: No Democrat has been elected from the North since JFK. Democrats, in order to get some kind of support in the south where they are weakest, must nominate a southerner. Likewise, the Republicans need to go with a Northerner for strategic reasons. Rather than going with Bill Frist, or someone like that, the Republicans need to go with a Northerner. this will bring swing voters into the fold who might be scared away from the stereotype of Republicans as rural, uneducated, fundamentalist, southern-accented, quasi-racist., etc. An urbane northerner like Romney would attract those swing voters from Northern cities and suburbs without (probably) driving away the south which will probably go Republican no matter what.

2) Charismatic: Romney is, quite simply, an attractive person in every way. He is well spoken without sounding like an intellectual snob. He is physically impressive--handsome, well-built, and sanguine in appearance. His unconscious smile will give him a Reaganesque/FDResque air of optimism that will attract voters.

3) He speaks French. Lest you think this quality matters little, remember that Kerry drew a number of voters by claiming that, without changing any policy, he would "work better with our allies" simply because of personal characteristics. Romney might very well be able to sell himself as someone who can restore traaditional alliances through personal magnetism. Imagine the U.S. President speaking to Chirac in his own tongue. It would be publicity heaven and might work diplomatic miracles.

4) Third Way: Republicans and Democrats have been engaging in tug-of-war for the past eight decades. Democrats simply cry for more government (as if throwing money at problems solved them) and Republicans simply cry for less government (while often silently increasing government all the while). Voters dislike both approaches as extreme. The average American voter is suspicious of government as a panacea, and yet is even more suspicious of radical politicians "rolling back" the basics of our welfare state. Romney's record as governor would allow him to take a "third way" approach to the more/less government debate. Romney could draw voters to him by claiming he does not want MORE government, he wants BETTER government and then cite several examples of how he has done this as governor to make his case. For instance, he speaks cogently of how he changed just a few policies towards the homeless, without reducing benefits at all, and saved the state's taxpayers millions of dollars. Simply by changing incentive structures, the state works more efficiently and cheaply: this without either expanding or restricting government. I think voters would really buy into this approach to things. It would bring a freshness to a tired/timeworn debate about "how much" government changing the terms to "what kind of government?"

There is no reason that Mitt Romney would not win in a landslide in 08' unless one of two things happen: 1) the Democrats grow up, get smart and eject the extremists who have hijacked their party (Dean, Moore, etc.). This is highly unlikely. They also need to be smarter about who they select as a presidential candidate. Nominating a northern liberal last time was a disaster. The election was theirs to lose since they were running against an unpopular incumbent. Kerry running on the platform of "I'm not Bush and that's good enough," was decidedly not good enough. They must find a moderate politician who is more regionally favorable (like Carter, Clinton), more moderate, and actually has ideas that expand beyond "I am against whatever Bush is for."
2) Romney's Mormonism, as I have hinted at before, could be a huge stumbling block. It remains to be seen whether the evangelical core of the party can overcome the prejudice that give Republicans a bad name, and stop their theocratic pontifications for two seconds to elect the man who would make the best president. Time will tell how this tale tells.

Lit Journal

2005-07-21T16:58:00.000-07:00

-Paul Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism: INtellectuals & Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994. New Haven: Yale UP, 1994As opposed to works by Gary Dorrien, Mark Gerson, and others, this focuses on old Neoconservatives (not the followers of Leo Strauss) and their role in shaping foreign policy.The work particularly focuses on Daniel Patrick Moynihan who kept the Democratic flame alive for the Neocons until he himself defected into the liberal ranks as a NY senator.I give this work ***+ stars which is good for a dissertation-turned-book, but recommend Ehrman's recent book on the eighties much more highly.

Personal Credo Pt. I

2005-07-20T23:20:00.000-07:00

I submit that human nature exists and persists. That the basic characteristics
and manners of human behavior remain in spite of technological advance and can
be seen across cultures and linguistic systems. Human nature is not plastic and we
ignore nature at our own peril. So data from the federalist papers or from Gibbons is still
relevant cuz interworkings of society are the same in spite of media changes, tech, etc.
discerning history is never outdated. Thus, history is useful, not to scientifically apply
(this worked in situation X so now let's do it in Y--too many variables), but rom which
to extract general principles (like advice: it's only good when genl and not applied)

Roberts

2005-07-19T22:37:00.000-07:00

The nomination of Roberts for the Supreme Court might throw my prediction a little off. I predicted that this nomination would cause a battle that exceeded the vitriol of the Bork nomination. I said this under the assumption that Bush would pick a fairly theoconservative individual who would be utterly unpalatable to the ACLU wing of the democratic party.

Having said that, I stick by my prediction that an ugly battle is ahead for a few reasons:
1) the Democratic party has gone more shrill and extremist since 1987
2) Being out of power, there is a great deal of resentment built up among its leaders
3) Being out of power, the Democrats know that the only way to push (or preserve) their agenda is through the judiciary. They cannot legislate through the normal processes--they keep losing elections--so they must resort to having their activist judges legislate from the bench. In other words, the judiciary is all they have...and they will fight to preserve it at all costs.

I could be wrong here. Roberts is a much more centrist conservative than many predicted or thought. Perhaps this will make him the "apt replacement for O'Conner" that the liberals have been looking for...but I doubt it.

Credo

2005-07-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

I think I concur with just about every sentiment expressed by Andrew Sullivan in his political credo:

"This I Believe: An American Creed
I believe in life. I believe in treasuring it as a mystery that will never be fully understood, as a sanctity that should never be destroyed, as an invitation to experience now what can only be remembered tomorrow. I believe in its indivisibility, in the intimate connection between the newest bud of spring and the flicker in the eye of a patient near death, between the athlete in his prime and the quadriplegic vet, between the fetus in the womb and the mother who bears another life in her own body.I believe in liberty. I believe that within every soul lies the capacity to reach for its own good, that within every physical body there endures an unalienable right to be free from coercion. I believe in a system of government that places that liberty at the center of its concerns, that enforces the law solely to protect that freedom, that sides with the individual against the claims of family and tribe and church and nation, that sees innocence before guilt and dignity before stigma. I believe in the right to own property, to maintain it against the benign suffocation of a government that would tax more and more of it away. I believe in freedom of speech and of contract, the right to offend and blaspheme, as well as the right to convert and bear witness. I believe that these freedoms are connected -- the freedom of the fundamentalist and the atheist, the female and the male, the black and the Asian, the gay and the straight.I believe in the pursuit of happiness. Not its attainment, nor its final definition, but its pursuit. I believe in the journey, not the arrival; in conversation, not monologues; in multiple questions rather than any single answer. I believe in the struggle to remake ourselves and challenge each other in the spirit of eternal forgiveness, in the awareness that none of us knows for sure what happiness truly is, but each of us knows the imperative to keep searching. I believe in the possibility of surprising joy, of serenity through pain, of homecoming through exile.And I believe in a country that enshrines each of these three things, a country that promises nothing but the promise of being more fully human, and never guarantees its success. In that constant failure to arrive -- implied at the very beginning -- lies the possibility of a permanently fresh start, an old newness, a way of revitalizing ourselves and our civilization in ways few foresaw and one day many will forget. But the point is now. And the place is America."

North Korea

2005-07-19T11:51:00.000-07:00

I know I rarely comment on foreign policy, but it seems that the North Korean threat requires some attention. North Korea is, in my view, the pit bull remnant of the cold war. That is, our paradigm tells us that the cold war and everything with it terminated abruptly (thanks to Reagan?) in 1989. This is overstated, of course, since North Korea still exists as the last redoubt and vestige of Stalinism. If they now pose a nuclear threat (which they probably do) then we must admit that the Cold war was never completely won. A Marxist/Stalinist state still holds an adversarial relationship to the U.S. and holds the same potential power to play nuclear war. Now, many will object that North Korea has yet to acquire intercontinental power, meaning that the immediate threat is not to us, but to their neighbors. Fair enough, but a nuclear attack on Japan or Taiwan would probably start World War III and who is to say that intercontinental capacities would not be far behind. Conclusion: North Korea poses a potential, vestigial cold war threat to the U.S. Throw in the post-9/11 terrorist threat mix and we have big problems on our hands.

What are the possible solutions? Tough one. Kim Jong Il is ruthless dictator and borderlines on insanity. He is a loose cannon and a disaster waiting to happen. He seems like the type who might be easily provoked into obliterating a city or two.
Our best option might be to seek a "triangular" solution with China. That is, China holds a unique, but importantly for our purposes, strategic relation to North Korea. Their common cultural and ethnic ties certainly bind them, but, more importantly, China's nominal Marxism might make it the perfect candidate to negotiate with North Korea. China is capitalist enough that it has close economic ties to the west, but just communist enough (in name) that it can still claim ideological affinity with the North Koreans.
In my opinion, U.S. Foreign Policy gurus should start cultivating every relationship it can with China and bend over backwards to increase trade. China's recent truculence could make this difficult, but the more common interests we have with them, the better they will be able to cajole North Korea out of nuclear insanity. In short, China represents a middle ground between North Korea and the U.S. that could make them the ideal middleman in diplomacy.

More on Moore

2005-07-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

Stephen Moore's WSJ article about "immigration [presumably illegal as well as legal] being good for America" provoked quite an outrage from readers. I believe the outrage was justified and found a lot of insightful commentary here. Here's one example:

"Mr. Moore, nice try! How nice that all these folks chose us--don't we get to invite the guests? How about that inconvenient thing called rule of law--or are they made up as we go along? Hopefully you or your family has not been victims of violence by some of the lovely gangs that have "chosen" our communities for their fields of operations. While no one would dispute the value of immigrants to our country, it is the legal part that is the issue. One attack on the homeland by a non-citizen and the economy will take a hit. As noted, we don't know the impact of immigration as far as the up tick in the economy reported here. We do definitely know that a terrorist attack from non-citizens will not have a positive effect on the economy. [italics mine]"

Feeling Charitable Today

2005-07-17T11:28:00.000-07:00

Perhaps its the economic news that came out last week that shows the President's tax cuts to be working, but today I'm willing to cut ol' George a break. Yes, I have fulminated against the president endlessly for his runaway spending, tariffs, the war and Iraq and its failures, and, especially, his lack of courage in defending our southern border from invaders.

However, it is time to give the president SOME credit where, perhaps, some credit is due. Let's be honest; the Democrats' demagoguery notwithstanding, the economy has performed quite impressively given the setbacks that occurred under his watch (a major technology bubble burst and 9/11). Perhaps most importantly, and something that almost never gets mentioned, we have NOT had another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. You can say that Bush's policies have made America more dangerous all you want, but the facts remain, either we have been very lucky, or his approach to keeping our country safe is working on some level. I might want to knock on wood at this point, lest a London incident occur in LA next week. But, it is important to note that, despite his failures, his record of prosperity and safety have been pretty good.

Now, the question is: will these short term successes give way to long-term failure? Will his failure to defend the southern border mean increased chaos at home and will his runaway spending have adverse effects on the economy long term? I believe the answer to both of these is in the affirmative. Nevertheless, two cheers for GW Bush's short term successes.

S. Moore needs more common sense

2005-07-12T20:53:00.000-07:00

Stephen Moore is usually a thoughtful individual who presents a strong case for limited government policies. But I'm afraid that his fatal flaw is that he is too willing to sacrifice everything (even freedom and order) to the holy god of economic growth. See his piece today in the WSJ here. Moore is a Cato institute fellow and will courageously call a spade a spade when so many others on the right simply repeat mantras about Bush's greatness. He was one of the first to point out, rightly, that, while the Democrats have long been the party of tax and spend, the GOP has become in the last four years the party of borrow and spend.

However, Moore, like all anarcho-libertarians, is defending the President's fatally flawed immigration policy on the grounds that "it helps the economy." Two problems here, 1) it probably doesn't help the economy when we factor in all of the damage done to the infrastructure by illegals and the toll they take on an economy through social services and 2) even if illegals did help the economy there are (brace yourself Stephen) more important things in life than the mighty dollar. Moore is so committed to the god of economic growth, that one gets the impression he would be happy for the crime rate to rise 100% if only it would increase the U.S. GNP by a few percentage points.

Moore, contrary to his claims, is not a libertarian because he has forgotten what "libertarian" stands for--liberty; and liberty requires order. The philosophy of libertarianism is MINIMAL government, that is, enough government to preserve liberty, not NO government. Moore, like most over at hte Cato institute, unfortunately, has forgotten his libertarian roots and lapsed into anarchism. The anarchy at our southern border is one of the greatest threats to American freedom today. How many more murders, thefts, rapes, and acts of unlawful appropriation need to take place before Moore and his fellow anarchists (including our "conservative" president) will wake up and realize this? To President Bush: Shut the border...now.

Polygamy vs. Gay Marriage

2005-07-11T18:33:00.000-07:00

Joe Knippenberg, who I had the opportunity to meet last week, is right on in his piece here. HE makes the crucial distinction between the Mormon case for polygamy in the 19th century vs. the gay marriage debate today by looking at demands. Mormons never asked for or even wanted legal recognition for their marital practices, they only wanted to be left alone. The gays are not asking to be left alone, but are asking to have their marriages sanctioned, blessed, and endorsed by the public at large. This is a crucial difference.

The Libertarian Answer

2005-07-11T17:04:00.000-07:00

As David Boaz shows in this piece, the libertarian solution is the only answer to problems posed by the culture wars. Bush seems to think that "big government conservatism" should increase funding for his side of the culture war (Christian), but the only long term solution is to privatize those areas generating controversy. In the long run, the ACLU will win and all public venues will be forced into the secular humanist religion. Our only choice, then, is to keep as much of society private as possible so that each group is free to express themselves in school, media, and otherwise, as they see fit. Want creationism taught in school? Fine, send your kids to a creationist school. Are you an atheist and want no religion at all mentioned? Fine, then send your kids to an atheist school. Vouchers, not battles over whether we are a "christian" society are the only answer to these cultural dilemmas.

Cougar Proposal: Electing the Supreme Court

2005-07-10T22:09:00.000-07:00

BYU Alums will be happy to note that a cougar law prof. has offered a much discussed proposal to begin electing Supreme Court justices. Read about it here. I can't say I agree with the proposal, but the fact that BYU law profs are squeeking into the public debate could be healthy for the school's reputation and might even help the law school climb even higher in those all-so-important U.S. News rankings.

Train Bombings

2005-07-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

London suffered an attack today, as everybody knows. My question is, will American mass transit be the next target? LA is a likely spot and the Metro would be a good place to strike. maybe I won't buy that year's pass as I had planned

Literary Journal

2005-07-06T22:25:00.000-07:00

I'll include this feature from time to time to give readers an idea of books I've been reading and thinking about. Hopefully it will stimulate some of you to pick up a few of my recommendations. I rate each book with 1-5 * after the publication info. Meaning, that *** would indicate the book was average and maybe worth reading. (You will probably not ever see a ** or * on the list since I would not finish such a book). ***+ means the book was better than average but nothing to rant about. **** indicates a good book that is recommended. ****+ indicates an excellent book that I highly recommend. ***** indicates one of the best books I've ever read that I consider a MUST read. Here are the first two entries in what I predict will be a regular feature on this blog:

-Paul Johnson, George Washington: The Founding Father. NY: HarperCollins, 2005
****: Well proportioned bio, meaning, sufficient time given to each period/aspect
of his life. This is a must in a short biography. Covers in outlines the entirety
of Washington's life and Johnson, as always, writes with a journalistic flair that makes reading enjoyable rather than tedious. His cynicism, though, does seem out of place in discussing
George Washington. Johnson tends to impute ulterior motives to everyone, yet this tactic doesn't quite work with someone of the magnanimity of Washington. Furthermore, Gordon Wood has recently revealed that this book contains significant errors (some of which I picked out while reading) that the reader should be warned of. However, if you want to begin a study of Washington, this is first place to go to get a broad overview of his life.

-Michael Barone, Our Country: A History of the U.S. from FDR to Reagan. ***+. Barone was, at the time, a political almanac
writer...and it shows. This prodigious volume was bogged down with so much data on
everything from changing approval numbers to senate primaries, that the story was lost in
the numbers. Overall, it was balanced (friendly to both FDR and Reagan) without
being ideological and this, in and of itself, puts the book miles ahead of 90% of the U.S. histories
being written today. On the other hand, it read like an almanac and probably should
be consulted rather than enjoyed. His "novel" conclusion, that ethnicity and region
trumped economic factors in 20th century U.S. politics, is well founded. On the other hand, he did not start making this point until the Nixon administrations. Recommended for those who enjoy minutiae and numbers, but few others.

Thomas's Problem

2005-07-05T11:26:00.000-07:00

Some left wing commentator a few moments ago on TV expressed his "horror" that Bush might nominate an "activist" (yes, activist) judge like Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. According to this horrified lawyer, Judge Thomas wants to allow the Mormons in Utah to have their way and establish Mormonism as the state religion.

OK, now to oppose Thomas is fine, and to have political philosophical differences is fine, but let's at least stay within the bounds of the real. In order to make his point, this commentator had to create two bogeymen: 1) the non-existent mormons in Utah who want to establish Mormonism as the state religion (the Mormons of reality have a central doctrine that specifically forbids state sponsorship of religion) and 2) a non-existent Judge Thomas who encourages these things. Yes, let's debate the issues, but creating fictions to scare Americans into frenzy is the ugliest form of McCarthyism. Let's not go there.

Happy Independence Day

2005-07-04T18:20:00.000-07:00

Happy fourth of July. Celebrate the occasion by reading Thomas Sowell's review of Jim Powell's expose of FDR's Folly here.

O'Conner and Orig. Intent

2005-07-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

Now that O'Conner is stepping down from the Supreme court, the wars can begin...and believe me, they will. I predict that the battle over supreme court nominees will make the Bork episode look mild by comparison. Why? Because the left has just gotten more ridiculous since 1987.

For example, commentators all morning have been talking about Bush nominating somebody who will interpret the constitution rather than legislating from the bench and this, of course, means that somebody will be a conservative. Hello? Since when does one have to be "conservative" to believe in the constitution and interpret it. Since the Left went anti-constitutional, that's when. The Left in this country, by and large, does not like the constitution. Hence, the effort by mainstream leftists (and I call them mainstream because Democratic presidential nominees regularly associate with and endorse them), such as George Soros and Cass Sunstein, to do away with that old "dinosaur" of a constitution drafted in 1787 and come up with a new "updated" constitution.

Even those on the Left who claim to accept the constitution, do not accept it as it is. They reject "original intent" (the document's only plausible meaning) and make the constitution mean/say whatever they want it to mean/say. They want a "flexible constitution," that is, a constitution that doesn't say what it says.

So, if Bush appoints a justice who 1) accepts the constitution (and its interpretation) and 2) does what the constitution says--judges based on the law rather than making law; then he will be decried as a "radical, right wing, fascist, nut case." When somebody who believes in the constitution is called a nutcase, what does it make those who think otherwise?

False Dichotomies

2005-06-30T09:59:00.000-07:00

A number of wrongheaded political classifications are floating around out there. One popular scheme is the idea that there is a political left and right and within each there is a "law" branch and a "liberty" branch. But I can't figure out how this works: isn't law a prerequisite for liberty? How can anyone be free without laws to protect that freedom? A society in which there is no punishment for theft, murder, kidnapping, etc. is no more free than the most authoritarian of societies, for the powerful will prey upon the weak, the weak will prey upon each other, and anarchy would ensue. There is a big difference between anarchy and liberty, and a failure to see that creates this false dichotomy of "order/law" vs. "liberty."

Likewise, others (notably Andrew Sullivan) have preached that there are two conservatisms. The first, the conservatism of doubt recognizes that there are human limitations to knowledge, hence we should be skeptical of trying to create utopia or act hastily since we are more likely to err than not. This skepticism leads one to a small government/freedom position (Sullivan's hero, Michael Oakeshott, is the paragon of this persuasion). ON the other hand are those who adhere to the conservatism of faith, who claim to know things with absolute certainty (GW Bush is the paragon of this persuasion). These people, since they believe they have all the answers, according to Sullivan, naturally coerce others into accepting their "absolute truths."

But Sullivan's dichotomy leaves out the majority of us. Most people believe things with absolute certainty, including myself, such as, there is a God, or 2+2=4, but for most of us, this does not automatically assume that we force these views on others. Just because I know with absolute certainty that 2+2=4 does not mean that I wish to force this belief on anybody else. Why Sullivan (and many others) make an unwarranted assumption that certainty creates coercion is beyond me. There is no logical connection, and for them to divide up the world into those who are skeptical and free and those who are certain and coercive is irresponsible and unthinking.

Sealing the Border

2005-06-29T18:41:00.000-07:00

You likely believe I refer to the U.S. Mexico border, but I don't. The same neocons (such as Charles Krauthammer) who emphatically proclaim that there is no way we can ever close the U.S. Border with Mexico (so let's just throw up our hands and let anarchy prevail), now insist that we close the Iraqi border with Syria. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Hobby Horse

2005-06-28T22:44:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting piece here about how today's "conservatism" ain't all that conservative. I have some issues with some (but not much) of what Sullivan says. On the other hand, I am in full agreement that we are witnessing either 1) the crack-up of conservatism or 2) a redefinition of conservatism comparable to the redefinition of liberalism that took place in the early 20th century (the break with classical liberalism/libertarianism). "Big government" conservatism is an oxymoron unless the meaning of conservatism itself has changed. Either the old guard "small government" conservatives will revolt at Bush's policies (causing the Right to split into two incompatible factions), or they will cease to have a place in a movement no longer defined by its opposition to big government (meaning, they--and I--will no longer be considered conservatives). The only possible third option here is that a dynamic conservative leader (perhaps the 2008 presidential candidate) steps forward to reclaim the legacy of Reagan and Goldwater. But the "Right's" cult-like adoration of Bush, and the unwillingness of the Republican candidates to criticize Bush on any grounds, make this scenario extremely unlikely.

Another discontent Republican

2005-06-28T18:11:00.000-07:00

The man in this article gives reasons for leaving the Republican party. I disagree with much of what he says, but some of it reminds me why I never joined the Republican party in the first place.

Why Pres. Bush is a Disaster

2005-06-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

GW Bush is a disaster as president.

No, not because he's a "radical right winger" (he's not, even though the left maintains vehemently that he is).

Bush is a disaster because he presents himself as a conservative, uses the rhetoric of conservatism, and yet governs from the Left on domestic policy (he has more in common with Kennedy-Johnson than any other combo in recent history). This is a disaster because when (not if) his Leftist policies fail, e.g. No Child Left Behind, Farm Subsidies, Tariffs, Medicare expansion, etc., people will claim that "conservatism failed." They of course will be wrong. Leftist welfare-statism will have failed again, but since Bush is perceived by everyone with any partisan leanings (both left and right) as a conservative, the immediate reaction against his failed policies, will be to elect more Leftists (....Hillary?) and our country will suffer immeasurably. Once the electorate sees where Bush's ostensibly "conservative" policies have taken us, they will run the other way.
Bush and congress, with "conservative" dominance, have an historic and unique opportunity to excise useless appendages from government (like the NEA) and enact much-needed reforms of the welfare state. Instead, they have been using all of their political capital to do either wrongheaded (democratize the middle east) things, trivial things (keep Terry Schiavo alive), or downright hurtful things (all those mentioned above).

Those who like Bush claim one of two things:
1) that he is a very conservative president.
They are wrong, he is no such thing. When you point out the FACTS about his actual record, rather than just his rhetoric, they then usually claim that:

2) Bush has to govern as a liberal in order to get elected.
This is also clearly wrong. People elected President Bush and a Republican congress because they believed them the conservative party. AS Micklethwait and Wooldridge show in their recent book The Right Nation, the American public has consistently moved to the right over the past 25 years. Never has the public wanted a more conservative president. If he would merely stand for something: conservative principles--he would be popular and respected rather than the "well, Kerry would be worse" President that he's become.

Did he have to move to the center to get elected? Maybe, most presidents do. However, Bush has not moved to the center, he has moved as far to the left as Lyndon Johnson on domestic spending and farther left than most democrats on immigration. I don't know what to think of his foreign policy, but it ain't conservative (that, of course, doesn't mean it's not correct, it's just not: restrained, moderate, resistent to change and all of the other things that define "conservative"). All Bush has done is "ratchet up" the Liberal capacity to whine about more government spending. Remember no child left Behind? Did the Democrats say "wow, that is more money than any president has ever given to education...good job!" or even "wow, maybe that is a little much!" Nope. They, of course, continued the "Republicans are heartless and hate children" nonsense...why? Because Republicans weren't spending enough on education (that is what Kerry claimed in the pres. debates). Clinton spent so little during his terms because conservatives governed from the right and forced him to remain at the center. The bottom line is that the Democrats will stake out a place on the Left of Bush no matter what he is doing. If he is giving amnesty to illegal aliens, they will claim he should give them transportation across the border as well. If he spends three hundred gazillion dollars on social programs, they will just claim he is bad for not spending four hundred gazillion. Bush is a disaster because of the ratchet effect we are seeing in Washington.
When Hillary gets in office she will claim "look what eight years of conservatism has gotten you: a bad economy and a huge national deficity" and then will enact a supremely Leftist agenda to "counteract" the "conservatism" of the previous years.
When I reflect on these things, I find myself wishing that Gore had won in 2000. At least then, a REpublican congress might have actually stopped government spending instead of saluting and falling in line with whatever the president did. If Gore had won, Leftist policies would be seen for what they are and their failures would be recognized. With a Leftist Republican in the white house, we have no such good fortune.

Bush's Vetophobia

2005-06-23T19:53:00.000-07:00

Why conservatives consider to praise Bush even after all of this is beyond me. Why liberals continue to spout the nonsensical mantras like "Bush is the biggest right-wing president in history" is an even bigger mystery.

PBS Funding

2005-06-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

David Boas is right on in this piece about why we should immediately defund all government sponsorship of media and the arts.

sorry about the low posting

2005-06-23T11:40:00.000-07:00

Had to give final exams this week. Sorry for the low posting frequency. Will be posting daily from here into the indefinite future

Durbin: Insane no, political opportunist, yes

2005-06-20T00:27:00.000-07:00

Senator Durbin is effectively pilloried here for his ridiculous and hard-to-believe comments equating the American military with Nazis, Soviet thugs, the Pol Pot regime, Satan, Joe McCarthy and every other evil thing imaginable.

The author of the piece, Mark Steyn, starts out, not by questioning the senator's patriotism, but his sanity. No. Steyn is wrong. Durbin is quite sane. But he is also quite willing to say anything, no matter how false, hurtful to his own country, or ridiculous, to fire up a Deaniac Democratic base that has passed beyond all limits of reasonable discourse in its efforts to hate the opposition party. Durbin is merely the latest manifestation of a party hijacked by the "hate-mongering" wing of the party driven by reckless rhetoric and the irrational hatred of a Republican president.

More Leftist Elitism

2005-06-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

If anyone wonders why Democrats keep losing elections, they need merely look at the rhetoric of such Leftist champions as Michael Gronewalter who stated:

'I really think the problem is that we liberals are in general far more intelligent, well-reasoned and educated and will go to astonishingly great lengths to convince people of the integrity and validity of our fair and well thought-out arguments. The audience, in case anyone has been paying attention, isn't always getting it! I suspect the problem is not the speaker - it is most of the audience.'

"The Audience," of course, is the American Public. Insulting the public would not be my first strategy in gaining electoral victories, but who am I to tell the Left how to do their business?

Hitting the nail on the head

2005-06-15T12:32:00.000-07:00

The elitist left in this country is, apparently, not so different from their European counterparts. This from Frank Furedi at Spiked:

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the populist rejection of the EU treaty, the manner in which the 'No' campaign is disparaged by professional politicians betrays a powerful anti-democratic temper. It appears that professional politicians attempt to account for their isolation from the electorate by pointing their finger at the incompetence of the public. On both sides of the Atlantic, the political class has drawn the conclusion that the problem with the people is that they do not know what's in their best interest. This sentiment is particularly widespread among liberal and left-wing activists and thinkers."

Sound familiar? It should. The Left-wing in this country has been whining about how stupid the electorate is ever since the last election. Hence the campaign to "educate" the public and "get the message out" to the poor, deluded public who is too benighted to be trusted.

Europe's Problems

2005-06-15T11:54:00.000-07:00

Those who see Europe as a model for the U.S., combining "Capitalist efficiency with socialist 'compassion'" might want to look again.

As Robert Samuelson notes here, Europe faces a menacing future created by the nanny-state, and their situation is unsustainable. Worst of all, Leftism is very conservative, that is, those who advocate big government programs will never advocate their repeal (just look at the Leftist diatribes against anyone who attempts to reform social security and you will know what I mean).

Pardon

2005-06-14T22:15:00.000-07:00

La Shawn is a woman...sorry.

Apology for Lynching

2005-06-14T22:12:00.000-07:00

This about sums up my feelings on the Senate's apology for lynching, although I don't think I would couch it in such terms and there is, in fact, something satisfying about formally denouncing an historical atrocity. Nevertheless, this man's (African-Amerian) take on the whole thing is entertaining:

"In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think this apology is one of the dumbest, emptiest, most politically correct pile of rubbish I’ve heard in a long time.
We’ve got fanatics trying to kill us all in the name of their god and hiding among us. We’re being taxed to death taking care of deadbeats and criminals, while President Bush is sending even more of our money to brutal dictators in Africa. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?
A hundred years from now, I hope politicians will apologize for the lynchings that took place in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted the white cops who subdued lifelong criminal Rodney King. They should also apologize for the lynching that goes on right here in the streets of D.C., as black and Hispanic gangbangers kill each other and innocents for the most ignorant reasons. Apologize for failing to deport Hispanic thugs who jumped the border to spread their thuggery into America’s heartland. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?
Perhaps Congress should apologize for decades of bloated socialist programs that caused the black family to disintegrate. Paying unmarried women to have babies is obscene, immoral, and the reason so many (too many) black children have no fathers to speak of. Treating blacks like dummies who require separate (LOWER) standards than every other race is offensive. I’m offended. Where is my apology?
Generations of blacks have been lulled into feeding from the government trough, and the damage it caused will reverberate for generations. And those numbskulls down the street are apologizing for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago. Lord, give me strength.
I’m sick of politicians wasting time and money pandering to blacks, treating us like empty-headed children, spoon-feeding us putrid pabulum, and prostrating themselves for every perceived slight. Don’t apologize to “Black People.” Apologize to individual blacks who actually care about this mess.
Apologize for failing to protect Americans against foreign invaders. Apologize for taking our hard-earned money and giving it to people who don’t want to earn it themselves. Apologize for constantly referring to me as “African American,” implying that I’m a lesser American than everyone else. Apologize to all Americans for pushing racially divisive entitlements and preferences and insane “hate crime” laws. Thanks to your misguided paternalism, racial tension will always be front and center.
Freedom is more important than all the apologies, handouts, and excuses Congress could ever come up with. I’m living in the best country in the world, and I’d never be freer anywhere else. To blacks who grew up believing America was the most racist place on earth, if you no longer believe that and realize freedom, the right to be left alone, is the only apology you need, demand that from your senators."

Hanson's Omission

2005-06-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

I liked Victor Davis Hanson's piece on illegal immigration here. I do quibble a bit with his "depressed wages" assertion, although it might have some validity, but I object much more to his omission of the key aspect of illegal immigration: CRIME.

As he points out, statistics are difficult to come by on illegal aliens since we have no census information about them (yet another reason to stop their entrance), so evidence about illegal immigrant crime will be mostly anecdotal. However, the news stories come across our televisions daily about murders, thefts, and rapes committed by illegal aliens, and why not? They are already breaking the law by coming here, and we have no system in place to keep the bad guys out and let the good guys in. Those who favor open borders are not for "multiculturalism" (left) or "free trade" (right), they are for anarchy, pure and simple and the fruits of anarchy--crime and chaos--have been and will continue to be our lot until we solve this major problem.

Great Cartoon

2005-06-14T12:09:00.000-07:00

See how today's media establishment would have behaved during the D-Day invasion here.

Dean's impact

2005-06-12T10:19:00.000-07:00

Some of a conservative bent shout "hallelujah" and praise the Almighty that Howard Dean serves as chairman of the DNC. His radical and alienating rhetoric, they maintain, will only serve to drive yet more voters into the Republican camp. This may be true, but I have two big reservations and here are the reasons I am less than sanguine about Dean as the DNC chair:

1) Radical rhetoric, whether coming from Left or Right, tends to pull the political center in their direction. Even if very few actually subscribe to the views of radical demagogues, the political center does tend to shift to placate the loudest voices. Just look what happened during the Great Depression: FDR was fairly moderate until the radical voices of Huey Long and Father Coughlin were raised demanding punitive tactics against "the rich" and big bad business. If we are to trust historian David M. Kennedy, this was the cause of FDR's "soak the rich" program in which he created new taxes for dividends, corporations, and the wealthy that harmed the economy to an unprecedented extent. Dean's antics, even though they may not be taken seriously by the mainstream, will certainly pull the mainstream in Dean's less-than-sane direction.

2) Yes, Dean's rhetoric probably will result in failures for the Democrats, but so what? My above point still stands and why should we be at all pleased with Republican electoral victories if they have been pulled so far to the left that they have lost what they once stood for. Remember that "radical left-winger" Bill Clinton? Well, in response to the Dean's of the Right (like Rush Limbaugh) he was forced to move the political center rightward. Although Republicans can boo and pout because "they didn't win," the cause that they were ultimately fighting for--responsible government--did. Clinton, by any typical criteria, was a much more conservative president than Bush. That Bush and Republicans have been elected is not a cause for celebration in the least unless they are going to govern appropriately. Thus far, they haven't.

Dean is radicalizing the Democratic party and since the Democratic party is a major American institution, what is bad for it is bad for America. In short, Howard Dean, contrary to Sean Hannity's gloating statements, is bad for America

LR on Bush's Spending

2005-06-11T23:02:00.000-07:00

Lew Rockwell had the following to say about our "conservative" president:

Number Seven: Government Spending. You will notice that Bush has lately been talking like a budget cutter. He is going to rein in government spending, he says. Well, I suppose everyone has known about the great uncle who swears he is going to cut back on his drinking, but somehow keeps ending up at the dry-out farm. He is the first president since John Quincy Adams not to veto a single bill during his first term in office. Total federal government spending is up by 30% in his first term, which is three times the rate of growth wrought by that bad, old big-spender, Bill Clinton. Since 2001, the government has hired an additional 140,000 civilians for its ranks.
In an anomalous manner, government revenue has been falling for some six years. Now, the response in a household to this type of trend would be to cut back. But the government has the exact opposite response. It has become more profligate even as its revenue stream is not producing what it might have expected. But beware: the bills will be paid somehow someday. All we know for sure is who will be doing the paying.

M.Jackson Trial

2005-06-09T10:24:00.000-07:00

I concur with this take on the Michael Jackson trial as follows:

"DOUBTS ABOUT JACKSON: Where to start in thinking about the Michael Jackson case? I guess I'd rather not think about it at all. It seems to me we have two reasonable doubts: on the one hand, the characters behind the charges are so sleazy and their stories so easy to pick apart that Jackson should be acquitted; on the other, no grown man in his 40s regularly sleeping with teens can be entirely altruistic. I didn't sit through the trial and I don't know which doubt will prevail. And, to be perfectly honest, I just don't know what I think Jackson might have done to the boys and teens in his care. It's perfectly possible, of course, that both doubts are correct: that Jackson's accusers are low-lifes and they are telling the truth. The case leaves me finally with a sense of intense sadness: about how this wreck of a human being, weaned on the poison of fame and money, came to believe that reality was as plastic as his own porcelain skin. And now reality hardens into a verdict. "

The Two Parties Are Failing Us

2005-06-08T12:38:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan had the following to say about our narrow choices in today's political scene:

It seems to me that the fundamental problem in today's politics is that those who generally support freedom at home and a tough foreign policy abroad have nowhere to go any more. We have to choose between an incompetent and morally suspect war party that has little time for civil liberties at home and a mush-headed, left-leaning, reactionary party that inspires little trust on the national security front."

My concern is not so much with "civil liberties" since that phrase has been so abused that "civil liberties" come to mean "whatever the ACLU wants it to mean." Rather, I'm concerned about the erosion of individual freedom and responsibility with a radical Republican party that thinks government is the solution to every evil. Throw taxpayer money at the medical system and it will be fixed (Bush's prescription drug bill); throw taxpayer money at schools and they will be fixed (Bush's no child left behind act); throw money at the steel companies and they will vote for me (Bush's steel tariff).

Review about Higher Edu. Books

2005-06-06T22:27:00.000-07:00

Enjoy this review from Books in Culture magazine about works that have come out treating the current state of academe. Especially interesting was the following about schools like Brigham Young U. that have a heavy religious bent:

"these religious colleges, most notably the ones widely deemed to be provincial and antiquated, are experiencing a surge in enrollments. Their students are academically capable and earnest, as well as committed to living virtuously and serving society. Their professors are—against Riley's expectations—equal and often superior to those at better-known secular universities, whether in terms of intellect, pedagogy, or the quality of their lives."

Hope!

Summers's attempt at repentance

2005-06-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

Heather MacDonald has a piece here showing how Harvard's president, Larry Summers, is attempting to atone for his unpardonable sin of hinting that men and wome might actually be different by sacrificing millions to the gods of diversity.