The New Pamphleteers

So...

2011-02-23T20:31:00.001-08:00

Anything big happen while I've been gone?

Ron Paul?

2010-02-20T16:08:00.000-08:00

Really? WTF, CPACers? Seriously. W. T. F?

A (b)Old Statement

2010-02-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

Today the "Mount Vernon Statement" was released, and I'm not all that happy. Oh, I don't really have any objections to what the statement says. I'm just disappointed that it had to be written at all.

The Mount Vernon Statement is supposed to be an updating of the Sharon Statement, signed by young conservatives in Sharon, Connecticut in 1960. It was bold and new at the time, because the young conservatives who put it together (for Young Americans for Freedom) were thinking bold and new thoughts.

Every one of the signers of the Mount Vernon Statement are undoubtably conservative, but with the exception of Kathryn Lopez of National Review, I don't think you could call any of them "young". In fact, if I recall correctly, at least one of the signers of the original Sharon Statement 50 years ago has signed on to the Mount Vernon Statement.

I'm not disappointed in these signers for this statement. I'm disappointed, frankly, that these elder statesmen of conservatism feel like they have to do this. These guys built a conservative movement from scratch 50 years ago, and my generation has been content to work for them, draw a paycheck from them, and coast on their ideas.

Even worse, I'm sure that my generation could write a great statement of principles, but what these conservatives did 50 years ago went far beyond words on paper. They built brick and mortar institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the Media Research Center, and of course Young Americans for Freedom. Our generation seems more interested in coming up with the venture capital needed for new blogs and websites. We're less interested in buildng a movement than in building our resumes or retirement accounts. We talk a lot, but we don't actually do much.

Perhaps it's not necessary for us to be architects of a 21st century conservatism. Perhaps we can stand on the shoulders of giants and use the institutions they created to further the conservative movement. Perhaps, but I'm not that optimistic. Is there room in modern conservatism for new and bold ideas that hearken back to the timeless principles enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Heck, is there room in modern conservatism to point out that the Declaration of Independence isn't all that conservative a document?

A return to the conservatism of 1960 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'm not convinced it's the best possible outcome. My generation has failed (and I include myself in this failure) to consider how to implement these timeless principles in a 21st century America, much less start the process of building the infrastructure that will be needed. I'm hopeful that the Tea Party movement may be the start of this process, but it's also clear that there are a lot of forces (both good and bad) who are trying to co-opt the Tea Parties for their own purposes.

In short, I'm feeling good about the chances for Republicans in 2010. I'm not feeling so good about the future of conservatism.

We Are Lost

2010-02-14T22:49:00.000-08:00

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see.

We are lost as a nation, and whether or not we are found is decidedly up in the air. There's something dreadfully wrong taking place, and most of us feel it from time to time, burning inside us like a low grade fever. It's a nagging thought that won't go away, a feeling of dread in the pit of your stomach. It's fear, and I have every reason to believe we should be afraid.

Walter Russell Mead believes the Blue Beast is to blame, and I think he's largely right when he says:

Blue institutions aren’t productive enough and efficient enough to provide the services we need. There’s a hard and bitter truth here: workers in these sectors are going to have to accept lower wages and less security going forward — and they will have to produce more than they do now. Much more. This sounds draconian and harsh, but with a relative handful of exceptions everybody else in the United States has been facing this reality for the last generation.

But asking others to sacrifice wages and security for the benefit of others doesn't strike me as all that easy, and the fact that the government is adding workers left and right doesn't make it any easier. I'm just not sure it's a realistic solution.

On the other hand, John Ellis believes that a possible merger with Canada, acquire land in Africa or Siberia, or even sell off territory should be considered as possible solutions to our debt. According to Ellis:

These are the big issues of US restructuring. And they are all on the table.

Except they are not. The Obama Administration keeps talking at us like its 1998 and we can have a "green" jobs program and national health insurance and "cap and trade" legislation and $250 million criminal proceedings for homicidal Islamic psychopaths in downtown Manhattan. We don't have $250 million for the KSM trial in Manhattan. Everybody knows that except, apparently, the Obama Administration.

Until President Obama engages the Grand Narrative of our time, and makes it his own, he will remain disconnected from the broad national interest ("interest" in the sense of what people are interested in and "interest" in the sense of what is best for the country). This is not just another recession. This is not just a fraying at the ends. This is a crisis of high throw weight and terrifying potential consequences. It's important that we muddle through. It matters. The President needs to start the restructuring by talking openly and honestly about what it might entail.

You know, I read that and can't help but think "Oh good God, it's not that bad!"

The problem is that tomorrow, I'll get that sinking feeling in my stomach when I read the paper. I'll get that low grade fever and think, "We've really gotta do something soon." And it's getting harder and harder to push those thoughts away these days. As crazy as it sounds, I think John Ellis may be right, at least about the size of the problems we face, if not the specific solutions he suggested.

I am, however, at least willing to offer my own pie in the sky ideas up to scrutiny. Before I do though, I need to make a brief point about something. The best thing that could happen would be for our politicians to start offering big ideas. Ellis goes after President Obama for not thinking big, but I feel the need to point out that it's not like elected Republicans are out there offering up their own audacious proposals.

As for my own off-the-wall suggestions, I'll give you two. These are rather esoteric, and like both Mead and Ellis, are far easier to write about than actually implement. I don't believe that either of these proposals would magically right the ship of state, either. The problems we face are just too complex for simple solutions. With that caveat, here we go.

The first thing we have to do is recognize that no matter how much we may despise other ideologies or political philosophies, we are in essence married to our political opponents. Unless we want to seriously consider divorce, we'd better find a way to stick together and make our marriage work. If nothing else, let's stay together for the sake of the kids. After all, this country was created as a contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn generations yet to come. We've been through a lot in this country's history, including a war to preserve the Union that cost more than 500,000 American lives. Do we really want to be the generation that screwed it up to the point of separation?

This isn't a call for bi-partisanship. This is simply a call to stop viewing our political opponents as our biggest enemies. I assure you, as much as conservatives may hate Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, and as much as our liberal friends may despise Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, these are not our biggest threats. China, a nuclear Iran, and non-state actors pose much bigger threats to our collective way of life than our political opponents. The people who are trying to destroy this country and our way of life won't be on the ballot this November, no matter what the pundit class says to the contrary.

If we recognize this, then perhaps we can start to deal with the domestic problems that confront us. But as long as it's easier and more politically expedient to place blame on the other side than it is to try and address the crisis that we face, we will do what is easy and fruitless.

Secondly, we need to decide on the scope of the problem. If, as John Ellis and Walter Russell Mead believe, this is a crisis of nation-shattering proportions, then our potential responses should reflect that. You don't take on an inferno with a squirt gun, after all. Mead says it's time to reform government with a crowbar instead of a scalpel. If that's the case, then why not go whole hog and call for a new Constitutional Convention? I know the can of worms that suggestion opens up, but I'd like to see such a convention focus on one thing in particular: updating our Constitution to allow for a greater consent of the governed. Is there a way that the People, either through the amendment process or via a national referendum, could overturn judicial decisions, veto legislation, or even enact legislation in certain circumstances? Obviously the bar would have to be high, but when vast swaths of the American people no longer have faith in their elected leaders, giving more power to the people seems like a much better alternative than just giving up and splitting apart.

I began this piece by quoting my favorite hymn, and for a reason. I'm not a very religious person, but I've been praying a lot lately, and I've been asking God to shed his grace on us. Throughout our nation's history, I believe you can find the hand of Providence guiding us through great moments of peril. If this is indeed one of those moments, or if we are hurtling towards one of those moments, I pray that we as a nation are still deserving and worthy of that amazing grace.

Where Have All the Statesmen Gone?

2010-01-01T16:05:00.000-08:00

What do you do if you're a well-to-do attorney from Illinois who wants to cultivate a homespun, down-to-earth image? I suppose these days you hire a team of consultants, but back in 1857 Abraham Lincoln decided to go with a portrait of him with tousled hair.

Lincoln himself said that unless he gave his hair a "bad tousle", he doubted folks would recognize him. And historian Harold Holzer said the new Republican party used the 1857 portrait to promote Lincoln because it, "seemed especially suitable for illustrating the Log Cabin to White House image his supporteres were cleverly crafting in the candidate's behalf."

I love this story because it demonstrates that before Lincoln could be a statesman, he had to be a politician. The same holds true for every one of our presidents. I wonder if sometimes we don't hold our modern politicians to a lower standard than necessary. History tells us its not only possible to be both statesman and politician, it's inevitable. So where the hell are our statesmen these days?

An Errant Thought on Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama

2009-12-09T15:02:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the absence. I haven't had much to say, or at least haven't been able to adequately express what I want to say, so I've been spending most of my time reading history books.

I've moved on from the Revolutionary period and into the early days of the Repbulic. Garry Wills' description of the Jefferson presidency in Henry Adams and the Making of America is particularly fascinating to me lately.

In Jefferson, you have a man who was, in the public's view, the "mind of the Revolution". Here was the author of the Declaration of Independence in the White House and in charge of the nation! Imagine the possibilities of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration when its primary author is the most powerful man in the nation, his party firmly in charge of two of the three branches of government. Change came to the United States in 1800, and in a striking parallel to today, Americans quickly discovered it was not the change they were looking for.

Jefferson's presidency was a litany of broken promises, of vows "meeting their expiration date". The man who proclaimed, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government" enacted the Embargo Act. The Act crippled the New England economy, and led to uprisings in several places. The man who said "a little revolution every now and then is a good thing" called out the troops.

Jefferson the politician is fascinating and somewhat horrifying to someone who reveres the Founders. I'm not sure how much he reminds me of Barack Obama in terms of specific policies, but I am struck by the similarity of the hopes Americans placed in both men to transform America. Jefferson didn't get his nation of agrarian philosophers, and he nearly crippled the national economy by continuing to take Napoleon's side against England, albeit under the guise of neutrality. A foreign policy blunder eventually led to the War of 1812... a war we didn't need to fight. Jefferson, the man who said, "Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government" approved of organizing the local militias (typically organized for "the common defense") and invading Canada!

Apparently it's tremendously easy to write in defense of freedom, to in fact believe you are working in the cause of freedom, while at the same time appeasing (if not outright siding with) tyrants in foreign lands and unconstitutionally expanding the strength and power of the federal government. The depressing thing is that even though Jefferson was seen as a failure when he left office, he had already succeeded in diminishing the Federalist Party to a permanent back-bench status, which left the party of Jefferson in charge until Andrew Jackson took office in 1828. Jefferson famously said in his first inauguration, "We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists." 203 years later, Barack Obama proclaimed, "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America." Jefferson succeeded in delivering a death blow to Federalists, but I'm not yet ready to believe that the party of Barack Obama will remain in power for the next 28 years.

The Road

2009-11-19T22:37:00.001-08:00

I asked my wife last night if she wanted to go see the new movie "The Road", based on Cormac McCarthy's novel. I haven't read the book, and had no idea that the movie has a post-apocalyptic setting until I saw the trailer. I'm always fascinated by this genre, and it looks intriguing. After watching the trailer, however, my wife said she wouldn't go see it.

"Too realistic," was her verdict. The weird thing is, I know what she means. It does feel like something big and bad could happen, doesn't it? A friend of mine told me the other day that he has a constant feeling of foreboding. Now this guy isn't a Birther or a Truther ("Oh good God no!" would be his reaction if you accused him of having sympathies towards either position), he's not a conspiracy theorist, and he's not one who always sees the worst in things.

We're a worried nation, no doubt about it. But are we worried about the right thing? We are so focused on our economic concerns that I wonder how many of us aren't thinking about the national security implications the Obama foreign policy (Obamappeasement, if you will) will certainly have. We are inviting trouble, we are showing weakness, and our enemies will take advantage of that.

Amidst this worry, economic or (less often) national security in nature, can a movie like "The Road" do well? I'm interested to see what the box office take turns out to be. My gut reaction is that it will do poorly, but perhaps a certain percentage of Americans like to soothe their worried minds by seeing humanity survive in conditions far worse than their own. If I end up watching the movie in the theater, it will be for that reason. I too am concerned these days, and a reminder that humanity is persistant would be welcomed these days.

The Wrong Way To Sell Conservatism

2009-11-04T13:21:00.000-08:00

Typically, telling the press that you're glad you made a little girl upset isn't going to endear you many people... including your fellow conservatives.

Telling her mother that she wanted to come to the aid of a library under attack, 11-year-old Sydney Sabbagha stood at the podium before the Oak Brook village board.

"I used to go to the library knowing there were people there to help me find a book. Now there is no one to help me," Sydney said solemnly. "It will never be the same without the people you fired."

Sydney nestled back into her seat, but that didn't stop 69-year-old criminal attorney Constantine "Connie" Xinos from boldly putting her in her place.

"Those who come up here with tears in their eyes talking about the library, put your money where your mouth is," Xinos shot back. He told Sydney and others who spoke against the layoffs of the three full-time staffers (including the head librarian and children's librarian) and two part-timers to stop "whining" and raise the money themselves.

"I don't care that you guys miss the librarian, and she was nice, and she helped you find books," Xinos told them.
...
"I wanted that kid to lose sleep that night," a grinning Xinos says Wednesday, as he invites me for a nearly two-hour interview in his Mercedes-Benz in the gated Oak Brook community where he lives. "This is the real world and the lesson, you folks who brought your kids here, is if you want something, pay for it."

I won't say I disagree with Xinos's "lesson", but if he thinks he's a great teacher he's out of his mind.

"You may like the library, but when you call 9-1-1, you want a policeman or a fireman before someone to tell you where the books are in the library," says the man who has talked of privatizing, outsourcing or even closing the library.

"I understand that my philosophy is conservative," Xinos says, adding that government just needs to catch bad guys, put out fires, fix the streets and make sure buildings are sturdy.

He campaigned, successfully, against a plan to bring subsidized housing for seniors into town by declaring, "I don't want to live next to poor people. I don't want poor people in my town."

Awesome. Now, by the way, the local librarians are thinking about unionizing... as Teamsters.

And here's a question: how many conservatives would agree with Xinos that government just needs to "catch bad guys, put out fires, fix the streets, and make sure buildings are sturdy"? I consider myself to be a pretty staunch conservative, but I wouldn't expect to win an election on a platform like that, even in the reddest of red states.

Ask Yourself This

2009-11-04T08:16:00.001-08:00

Robert Stacy McCain on Hoffman's loss in NY-23 last night.

OK, so Doug Hoffman fell 4,000 votes short of a House seat. But ask yourself this: What will Regnery pay him as a book advance?

Why would I care, Robert? Will a big, fat, book advance from a conservative publisher help me in any way? Will a book deal with Regnery for Hoffman help the conservative movement any more than Joe the Plumber's book deal? I doubt it.

Dear 23

2009-11-03T22:26:00.000-08:00

Well, the results in NY-23 have certainly thrown conventional wisdom on its head. I, like most people, expected a solid Hoffman win this evening. Instead we saw the Democrat pick up a seat they haven't held in 100 years. Already people are saying there are no lessons to be learned from NY-23. That's nonsense. There are lessons to be learned everywhere, including unique circumstances. So what can we learn from this?

1) A Republican district is not necessarily a conservative one, or at least it's not necessarily a Glenn Beck-listening, Sarah Palin-adoring, Red State-reading district. In fact, it's highly likely that there are some Republican-leaning districts where an appearance by Sarah Palin could cost you more than she gets you. Oh, you'll get tons of supporters turning out to see her, and they'll be enthusiastic as can be, but they were already going to vote for you. The tea party celebrities are great cheerleaders, but they're not on the field. Ultimately they can't lead you to victory.

2) Owens was the beneficiary of some pretty ugly conservative infighting. The Scozzafava campaign was so busy filing police reports against reporters from The Weekly Standard, and the Tea Party crowd was too busy trying to convince Republicans to "Dump Dede" that Owens remained largely unscathed. In a perfect world, the argument wouldn't be about whether or not differing strains of conservatism can co-exist in the Republican Party, but how best to determine what strain of conservatism is most likely to work in any given race.

3) New Republicans, I fear, will use this as "evidence" of the Tea Parties failure, and will likely gloat about the loss. Good Republicans should never be pleased about losing a seat, and if we're talking about the need for a strong party, then that means we should all be bothered by Hoffman's loss. Like it or not, he was the standard-bearer of conservatism and Republicanism in the race... and he lost. New Republicans can't realistically claim that Scozzafava was going to win the election without Hoffman's presence, because many conservative Republicans would have simply stayed home. Hoffman was popular for a reason, and New Republicans have to recognize why he nearly beat Owens last night. Many of his positions are very popular, and not incorrect. We do need to spend less money. We do need more accountability in government. We do need the heavy hand of bureaucracy to develop a lighter touch. These are issues that resonate with large swaths of the voting public, but the New Republicans are too consumed by their distaste for the messenger that they give no real thought to the message.

That's the tragedy here. Both Tea Partiers and New Republicans want the GOP to maintain it's ideological purity as determined by them. Both sides seem to forget that conservatism has always had many strains. Conservatism isn't like communism. It has no single author. If the Tea Partiers can find room in their philosophy for both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men who were political enemies for most of their post-Revolution lives, then why can't they find room in modern conservatism for Sarah Palin and David Frum? And if the New Republicans see that a pro-life Republican can win, even in the northeast, then maybe they'll realize that as long as social issues aren't at the forefront of a campaign, a socially conservative candidate can find success in some pretty "blue" areas of the country.

Frum's Wrong

2009-11-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

Lest I be accused of spending an inordinate amount of time criticizing the Tea Party movement, let me lob a few rhetorical bombs David Frum's way.

Frum says that even if the GOP has a good day today, it won't be that big a deal.

In two of the three most watched races in the country, the candidate of the president’s party is running neck and neck against his main challenger – in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

This is what you call a conservative politics that is “working”? What would it look like if conservative politics were failing?

Considering the identity gap facing the GOP right now, I'd say today looks pretty good for the GOP. If conservative politics were failing, I think you'd be looking at Deeds cruising to victory in Virginia, Corzine ahead by 7-8 points in NJ, and gay marriage enjoying wide support in Maine. None of those things are happening.

Yes, New Jersey is still close. It helps that Corzine has outspent Chris Christie nearly 3-1 in the campaign, with most of that coming from his own personal stash of cash.

Finally, what makes 1993 "so much more successful" for Republicans than 2009? Was it the election of Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan? The election of Rudy in NYC? Frum fails to tells us why those particular races should matter more than the possible election of a Republican mayor in Charlotte, and defeat of gay marriage initiatives in Maine and (less likely) Washington State.

Frum may not like the Tea Party crowd, but he's just wrong in saying that good news for the GOP means nothing.

Jacksonian Conservatism?

2009-11-02T15:23:00.000-08:00

It's rare to find a conservative positively quoting Andrew Jackson. After all, he's the first president who wielded his office with supreme authority, an American Caesar who was derided as "King Andrew" by his opponents (and proto-Republicans) the Whigs. Yet a few days ago at Jersey Conservative, Dominick G. Spadea concluded a Tea Party-esque rant against the Federal Reserve by quoting Andrew Jackson's veto of the Second Bank of America:

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."

As Damon Root pointed out at Reason last year:

On the bank issue, Jackson was something of a libertarian, arguing that the institution granted monopoly powers to politically connected elites. Yet when it came to South Carolina's talk of secession, Jackson was a ferocious nationalist, threatening to unleash steel and fire to preserve the union.

His politics, in other words, were all over the place, held together only by his considerable belief in his own righteousness. But why would anyone accept that as a reason to trust a single, fallible human being with unilateral war making authority?

Andrew Jackson was the closest thing to a despot this nation had ever known, and the fact that he was a populist shouldn't make him any more loveable to conservatives. Yes, I know that Americans of all stripes trivialize history, but there's a certain breed of conservatives who do something very dangerous; they value the past without truly valuing history. It's easy to do. In fact, I constantly struggle with it myself, but I now understand that knowledge doesn't come from memorizing a Patrick Henry quote, or citing Thomas Jefferson. The key, for me at least, was the recognition that the Founders were a diverse group, even during the War of Independence, and not all of them are rightfully called conservative.

Thomas Paine, as I've previously mentioned, wasn't the slightest bit conservative... but now plenty of conservatives (including me until relatively recently) see him as a forgotten Founding Father. Franklin wasn't particularly conservative, and would likely be labeled a RINO if he even felt at home in the Republican Party. Jefferson is a fascinating case. His quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is as far from conservatism as Marx's "Revolutions are the locomotives of history." Yet the Tea Party movement seems to love Jefferson because of his professed belief in a limited federal government. The reality of his administration is quite different, but what he said is apparently far more important than what he did.

It is the same mistake Mr. Spadea makes in regards to Andrew Jackson. He quotes Jackson approvingly, but fails to see that Jackson was very much like our current president: Old Hickory knew that gaining popular support inevitably requires giving the people what they want, and that if the people are placated, enormous power can we wielded with little public consternation. Jackson could be both a man of the people, and an autocrat... kinda like Hugo Chavez today.

For the record, while it may very much have been in the nation's interest to shut down the 2nd Bank of the United States, the nation still went through an economic panic and 5-year depression beginning in 1837... the year after Jackson issued his quotable veto message.

The Tea Party Grows Up

2009-11-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

By all indications, Election Day could serve as a coming out party for the Tea Party movement. NY-23 has been a clusterfuck of epic proportions, but when all is said and done it looks like the Tea Partiers were right: Dede Scozzafava was a wretched candidate, and if Doug Hoffman pulls out a victory tomorrow night, it will be hard to argue that he shouldn't have been the GOP's candidate. By the time dawn breaks on Wednesday, the Tea Party movement will be both hailed and vilified as the new power brokers on the Right.

I've been on the fence about the Tea Party movement from the get go, and I'm not quite ready to hop down on either side yet. I completely recognize the legitimate anger towards incompetent elected officials who seem uninterested in what their constituents have to say, the fear that the country is drifting (or dashing headlong)away from the principles of our Founders, and the

And yet I'm still not convinced that the Tea Party movement is, on the whole, a good thing for conservatism. I realize the tar and feathers are being readied for me after that statement, but hear me out for a moment or two.

First off, the notion that the Tea Parties are non-partisan in nature should finally be put to rest. The Tea Partiers support limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a restoration of our Constitution (as best as I can sum up from the various Tea Party websites out there). And supporting Doug Hoffman is well in line with those values. But why did the Tea Party people care about the RNCC supporting Dede Scozzafava? Why did a blogger/talk show host like Dana Loesch start a "dump Dede" website? Why did the Tea Party go after the Republican candidate and not the Democratic candidate? The answer's blindingly obvious: Tea Partiers are conservative, and they feel a connection with the Republican brand, even if they feel a disconnect with the current Republican leadership. That's all fine and good, but if the Tea Partiers want honesty, they can start with themselves.

That means that the Tea Partiers are waging a two-front campaign against both the progressives in power and the out-of-power (and quite possibliy out-of-touch) GOP. Two front wars tend to be more difficult, and tactically speaking, are to be avoided when possible. It's one thing to go after a bad candidate in a winnable district. It's another thing to go after the existing party structure, especially when the Tea Party movement itself is still very nebulous and unorganized.

I'm very interested to see who, if anyone, starts to become the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of people, both established pundits and those who want to be the next conservative star, who have and will attach themselves to the movement. Some of them have some fairly wacky ideas about things, and I'm curious to see how the movement deals with the far-right fringe. We know that Dede Scozzafava is too far left to be welcomed into the Tea Party fold. Is it even possible that someone can be too far right to be embraced by the Tea Party faithful? How about "too crazy"? If the Tea Partiers break with a candidate because they're pro-choice, but welcome activists who believe in FEMA death camps, can the Tea Party movement really be considered mainstream? More importantly, can a movement predicated on the belief that The People innately know what is right and best really be considered conservative?*

There are a lot of questions surrounding conservatism and the Republican Party these days, and not every question needs to be directed at the party leaders who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Dede Scozzafava's campaign.

*I plan on expounding on this at some point in the future. I've been mulling it over in my head, and have even attempted to put some thoughts on paper, but I'm not quite ready yet.

Worth 1,000 Words

2009-10-27T17:24:00.000-07:00

If you ever need the perfect visual representation of the idea that technology doesn't always equal human progress, look no further than the latest cover of the New Yorker.

Just a Thought

2009-10-27T13:42:00.001-07:00

I find it amusing that many of the same people decrying the drone-like thinking of our elected officials are themselves guilty of a litmus test of sorts for candidates. I guess I'm with Newt on this. To say that the Republican Party is broken, and that independents and third-parties are the way to go... but then expect that independent candidates are going to toe the non-party line on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gun control to taxes strikes me as absurd.

The problem for Newt (and other non-populist conservatives) is that the GOP candidate in NY's 23rd district appears to be a horrible candidate, and not just because of her policies. Nobody in the establishment seems willing to make the case that Scozzafazza has turned out to be a flawed candidate because of her personality as opposed to policies, but in my opinion it's the best thing they could do. Otherwise, we might as well just admit that the conservative movement is dead (or at least moribund), and that populism has taken its place.

Oh Those Glorious Days of Yesterday

2009-10-22T12:38:00.000-07:00

In my inbox today, I received an email from a fan of my day job (even Z-level celebrities have their followers). In it, he said:

Maybe the American People are no longer worthy of the Liberty which God bestowed upon our Patriot Ancestors over 230 years ago. Given the current popularity of pornography, drug addiction, child abuse, prenatal infanticide ("abortion") sodomy, government corruption and other behaviors which back in our Founder's time were known as "Sin", an excellent case could be made for that theory.

I've been seeing more and more statements like this, and while they're certainly well-intentioned and passionately believed, I'm not sure they reflect any real historical reality.

Pornography is certainly more popular today than ever before, but it's not like it was unknown in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors". Drug addiction? Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", beer was more common (and safer) than water in many cities. Child abuse? Yes, we have child abuse today, but we also have laws against it. Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", children were put to work, accidents were common, and beatings were sanctioned under the law.

More importantly, while there are things that our Founders considered sinful that we now allow as legal, there were also things that our Founders accepted that we would now consider sinful behavior. It's a two way street. Yes, abortion was illegal in the days of our "Patriot Ancestors". Women also couldn't vote or hold public office. Yes, pornography is rampant in our society. In pre-Revolutionary Boston, prostitution was rampant. Government corruption? It's always been with us, because governments are made up of men, and men are imperfect vessels.

There is a lot to admire and a great deal to learn from our ancestors, but that doesn't mean that they lived in a utopian age of patriotic freedom. When we approach the past from that perspective, we miss the lessons we can learn from their reality.

Don't Tread on Fox

2009-10-19T21:44:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the Obama administration going after Fox News. When David Axelrod took to the airwaves this weekend and said, "A lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view," why didn't George Stephanopolous ask Axelrod about Ed Schultz getting a front row seat to an Obama prime time press conference? Cleary the White House doesn't mind people who push a point of view, so why hasn't Sean Hannity been invited to a press conference? Why hasn't Bill O'Reilly? Or Glenn Beck?

And when Rahm Emanuel said, ""It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective," then why didn't John King ask about Obama's appearance on "The Daily Show" or Michelle Obama's appearance on "The Colbert Report"? Certainly hosts like David Letterman and Jay Leno have their own unique perspective. That's one of the reasons we watch them, and Obama's made multiple appearances on both programs.

The White House is now declaring that America's most watched news network isn't news at all. Administrations dating back to Adams have declared certain members of the press to be enemies, but you may have to go back to the second presidency to find a case of an administration declaring war on (arguably) the most popular press. John Adams wasn't sold on the idea of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he still signed them, and it very well may have cost him re-election. Declaring war on a portion of the press is a statement that you no longer want to hear from them or the people they represent. People don't like their government telling them that they're not worth listening to, and that's exactly what's happening these days. Representatives don't want to meet with constituents because they don't like what they're going to hear. A presidential administration says Fox News is faux news, and asks the other networks to light their torches and storm the castle. Those aren't the moves we expect our elected officials to make. We expect them to listen to us, and we are not being heard. Now the administration wants shut out what is arguably our loudest voice.

I have a feeling by the time this all plays out, the Obama administration will have created a million more fans of the network, and Obama will have lost further standing among the American people, at a time when he needs public support more than ever. Obama's personal approval ratings have been relatively stable, and much higher than the ratings on his handlings of issues. Now he's getting personal against the popular press, and I suspect that his popularity will take a hit as a result. Is there no one in the White House pragmatic enough to tell the president: Don't Tread on Fox?

Is Conservative the Anti-Funny?

2009-10-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

Maybe my sense of humor climbed into a helium balloon and is now floating over the D.C. skyline (or is hiding in an attic somewhere), but I'm failing to see the funny in Steven Crowder's new video.

I mean, I suppose it's no less funny than SNL's ~~"Dick in a Box"~~ "Jizz in My Pants" (I just can't keep my SNL skits straight anymore), or any of the other "white guy rapping" videos. I don't think it's racist... I just think it's lazy instead of funny.

Seriously, the President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Prize after nine months in office, and the best you can do is a rap about winning a prize for doing your laundry and brushing your dog?

Crowder's a funny guy, and I've liked his stuff in the past. I just hope he's not falling into the same trap that seems to befall so many comedians who come out as conservative: they become less funny. Anybody remember how funny Dennis Miller used to be?

Glenn Beck's Common Sense- A Post Script

2009-10-16T12:43:00.000-07:00

I'm hoping to have my review of Glenn Beck's Arguing With Idiots up this weekend, but before I leave GBCS behind, I wanted to make one more point.

I've already pointed out some of the conservative problems with Thomas Paine (and the fact that Beck holds Paine in such high esteem while railing against Progressives still amuses me), but what if Beck had turned to another Englishman instead of Paine. What if Beck had been inspired by Churchill?

While I was reading GBCS, my mind kept turning to some of the speeches Churchill made in the mid and late 1930's. The other day I had the opportunity to peruse some of those speeches, and I found this quote that I think makes Beck's point far better than anything Paine ever wrote.

And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Unemployment near 10%. Acquiesence to foreign enemies. Progressive social programs that will bankrupt our future. A break with the old social contract between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. But do not suppose that this is as bad as it gets. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. It is entirely possible that two decades from now we will look back on this time as the "good old days".

The message in Glenn Beck's Common Sense was ultimately one of optimism, a feeling I fear is misplaced. We may be entering a long winter of discontent, and we are certainly not guaranteed of victory, even if that supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor takes place in the near future.

How Far We've Fallen: Gandhi Edition

2009-10-14T17:24:00.000-07:00

Back in the 1940's Mohandas Gandhi practiced non-violence as a way to gain Indian independence. Now his grandson wants to use non-violence as a means of control.

This view of a culture of violence is a central aspect to the philosophy that Dr Gandhi shared with the university: "In modern times, we have come to believe that peace can be achieved through the power of the gun and therefore the more weapons a nation has, the stronger a nation is, that they can attain peace through that.

"Now that may be peace of some sort, but that is peace that comes through fear, and that doesn't last very long. Controlling anybody through fear is a very negative thing.

"We need to control people through love and respect, and I believe that can be done between nations as well as between individuals."

We need to control people through love and respect. Could Nancy Pelosi have put it any better?

How Important Is History?

2009-10-14T13:09:00.000-07:00

I'm an unabashed history geek, but I fear my generation doesn't really appreciate the story of mankind. Our history is dumbed down and trivialized, and while there are flashes of brilliance to be found in print, online, and television, it pales in comparison to the masses of crap that are churned out by our culture. We even have multiple reality shows airing on the History Channel, which seems rather odd to me.

So, I thought I'd put up a poll to find out if I'm alone in being bothered by our serene and ignorant wanderings through the world, oblivious to what came before us and refusing to contemplate the world we will leave behind. Thanks for casting your vote, and feel free to leave a comment as well.

Are We Decadent Yet?

2009-10-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, historian Jacques Barzun released his history of the past 500 years. He called it From Dawn to Decadence. I thought about Barzun's book while I was reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense, because I get the sense that Beck would agree we've become a decadent society that cannot change based on legislation or judicial rulings alone. If you believe society is decadent, then you tend to believe that we need a social and cultural awakening so that we behave better, instead of passing more rules and laws to guide a morally anarchic society.

I thought about this while reading Suzanne Breslin's eye-opening essay, They Shoot Porn Stars, Don't They?. I'm not an anti-porn crusader, but there was something distubing and depressing about Breslin's story. Maybe it was the porn director who wanted to make an actress cry before her scene, maybe it was the actress who reluctantly decided to let a machine invade her "personal space" for the whopping sum of $500, or maybe it was the breezy assertion of a porn producer and director who simply believes that if people didn't want this stuff, nobody would buy it. He's right, of course. People want all kinds of stuff. That doesn't mean it's good for us to have it.

So what do you think? Are we a decadent society?

Eugene Robinson: Strawman Slayer

2009-10-13T10:04:00.000-07:00

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson really stretches his mental muscles today, opining that conservatives are exhibiting "Hanoi Jane" behavior. Here's a question for Mr. Robinson: I thought Jane Fonda's actions in the 1970's were perfectly fine, or at least excusable now (kinda like Roman Polanski's rape of a 13-year old girl). Yet I doubt 30 years from now Eugene Robinson is going to be okay with Limbaugh and Beck's criticism of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. So is Mr. Robinson just intellectually lazy, or is he hypocritical?

I'm going with lazy. Robinson, rather than accepting the fact that plenty of world leaders (including Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa) didn't think Obama had earned the prize, instead engages in a fight with strawmen.

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Let the president actually accomplish any of those things, Mr. Robinson. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong, but it's telling that even you can't find real accomplishments of the President. Instead you have to invent future accomplishments for the President. How lame.

Of course, having said that, watch Eugene Robinson win a Pulitzer for this column.

A Split Decision On Glenn Beck's Common Sense

2009-10-09T15:38:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck's Common Sense is ultimately a book with two purposes. The first is to outline the urgent problems that our nation seems unwilling or unable to recognize, and the second is to tell us how to act. GBCS succeeds brilliantly in achieving its first purpose, but sadly, fails to achieve its second goal.

The book is full of shocking and disturbing statistics about greed, government waste, and Progressivism, presented in a very "common sense" way. By the time I had finished reading, I believed Beck. We have some serious problems confronting us, and if we don't deal with them, our children are going to be the ones paying the price. Of course, I believed that going into the book as well.

Unfortunately, the remedies offered by Beck are vague and exceedingly unrealistic. After carefully and skillfully guiding the readers through what could be a very boring discussion on national debt, Beck's answer to us is: stop spending. His answer to the problem of parties that don't listen to us is to drop out (as opposed to Goldwater's solution in 1964 of getting more involved in the Republican Party). His 9.12 project is full of populist platitudes like, "The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me." Well, populism isn't conservatism, and a nation of honest, reverent, hopeful, thrifty, humble, charitable, sincere, moderate, hard working, courageous, grateful, and personally responsible people suddenly developing overnight in this country strikes me as almost as fanciful as believing that there is such a thing as "free money" to give to people. And the sad fact is, we have plenty of Americans who believe in free money. Those of us who don't believe Obama's "stash" (as one woman in Detroit recently put it) is neverending have to be realistic in our goals and tactical in our thinking.

Glenn Beck has a wonderful way with words, but that doesn't mean that his call to action is on target. If anything, Beck is guilty of expecting too much from his fellow Americans. It's a shame, because as a warning cry, GBCS is desperately needed. And to be perfectly honest, why should Beck be expected to both warn the world of impending doom and be the guy with the plan to save the day? That scenario seems more Hollywood than history to me. After all, Paul Revere warned the countryside that the Regulars were out, but it's not like he helped write the Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but didn't fight when the British invaded Virginia during the War of Independance. So why should Glenn Beck (or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity) know best how to save us?

In the end, I have to give GBCS one thumb up. It attempts to be a serious book, but by articulating essentially unserious solutions, it fails to be anything more than words of warning lost amidst a pundit's heartfelt yearning for a new and awakened America.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense- A Multi-Part Review

2009-10-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently emailed me and asked what I thought about Glenn Beck's books, "Glenn Beck's Common Sense" and "Arguing With Idiots". I told her that since I hadn't read them, I really couldn't pass judgement. Then I thought to myself that since a) I was looking for something new to read and b) Beck is everywhere these days, it wouldn't hurt to pick up the books and give them a going over. So, periodically I'll be sharing some thoughts about the books, starting with Glenn Beck's Common Sense (hereafter known as GBCS).

I have to confess something right up front. I am not a fan of modern day pundits draping themselves in the flags of our founders. I didn't like it when Peggy Noonan did it with Patriotic Grace, and I don't like it when Glenn Beck does it with GBCS. Remember, I was the guy who didn't even want the Tea Parties called Tea Parties. I believe our history is a precious resource, and I'm greatly concerned when people play fast and loose with our history to try and draw comparisons to today.

This brings me to the first problem I have with GBCS. Glenn Beck is a product, in a way that Thomas Paine never was. Right there on the third page of GBCS it even says, "Glenn Beck is a trademark of Mercury Radio Arts, Inc." Thomas Paine, on the other hand, wrote and published the original Common Sense anonymously. Beck charges $11.99 for his book. Paine charged two shillings for the first run, and then one shilling thereafter. He also encouraged the reprinting of the pamphlet by other printers, and did not accept royalties for the sale of Common Sense. Considering the pamphlet is estimated to have sold hundreds of thousands of copies in less than a year, Paine turned his back on quite a bit of cash.

I'll admit, I would probably have a more open mind if Beck's book didn't bow to the altar of Paine quite so often, at least in the early going (I'm reviewing as I'm reading). For instance, in his author's note, Beck calls Paine a "heroic patriot". No, actually Paine wasn't a patriot. He was indeed, as Beck describes him, an extraordinary writer and (at times) a renowned motivator, but he was never a patriot in the modern sense of the word. Paine's cause wasn't freedom from British tyranny, it was freedom from monarchical tyranny throughout the world (Scott Liell's 46 Pages provides a rich and detailed, yet very readable account of Paine's life, as well as the meaning and impact that Common Sense had upon its publication). After the American Revolution, Paine returned to London, and eventually went to Revolutionary France, where he was initially hailed as a hero, but nearly lost his life as the governmental Terror campaign was roaring to life. Paine was also a critic of religious authority, and I'm curious to see if Beck's reverence for Paine extends to Age of Reason. Paine was also the author of Agrarian Justice, which stated in part:

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity . . . [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Not exactly the words of a firebreathing individualist, but that's because Paine wasn't a conservative. Paine was a pure radical, more interested in change than what came after it. In fact, his ideas of governance bear an awful resemblance to the modern day liberal twaddle that Beck attacks throughout the rest of the book.

I point this out not to play "gotcha!" with Beck, but because at the outset of reading this book I am already concerned about faulty assumptions and bad history. The half-knowledge most of us possess is enough to make us think we know our history, but not enough to actually serve any useful purpose beyond looking like we're smart. To think that most of us know enough about our history to recognize our mistakes, much less learn to repeat them is ridiculous, and we don't help our cause when we add to the misconceptions many of us have about the Founding generation.

One other point I need to make before I get into the meat of the book. When you're writing that "Today we find ourselves back in 1776", you immediately run into a problem: it's not 1776, for many reasons. Chiefly among them: we're not at war with our government. And to suggest that it is 1776 might make folks think you're advocating such a war. How does Beck deal with this dilemna? Just two paragraphs after saying it's 1776 all over again, Beck stands down.

I lay out several options, but I want to be clear that none of them includes violence. Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries shed their blood so that future generations would have access to weapons immeasurably stronger than muskets or bayonets: the weapons of democracy. Those are the tools that we will use to usher in a second American revolution, a revolution that won't be fought on battlefields, but in the hearts and minds of the three hundred million people lucky enough to call America home.

Here, as throughout the book, Beck is correct in the bottom line (violent revolution is not the answer), but he's completely off in his line of reasoning. Not to put too fine a point on it, but our Founders weren't Jesus, and they didn't die so that we would never have to fight our government again. We can't buy our freedom on the credit of our ancestors' heroism and courage. We haven't even begun to exhaust non-violent remedies that are available to an active and involved citizenry, but the thought that our children or grandchildren may not live in circumstances identical to ours isn't a radical one. In fact, it's just common sense. It's also a much more difficult argument to make, one that, fully fleshed out (as opposed to my own brief thoughts) would take a lot more space than the three sentences Beck spends opposing violence. Again, he reaches the right conclusion, but he gets there via an easy and cheap argument, and one that doesn't stand up to intellectual rigor.

Secondly, I dislike Beck's rhetoric calling for a second American revolution, because Beck doesn't really want a political revolution. I believe what he's calling for is a social Awakening instead, but almost nobody knows who Jonathan Edwards is these days (though Voters in the Hands of an Angry God would make a great title). Still, don't cheapen history. There's a lot of useful knowledge to be gleaned from a survey of pre-Revolutionary American history. Our story doesn't begin with the Founding generation, and Beck may have found a better match in the periodic religious resurgances throughout our nation's history had he looked there.

Having said all that, when seperating Beck's own thoughts from the historical context in which he wants to place them, Beck's message of action ("Do not remain neutral. Do not sit idly by.) resonates with millions of us. He's right when he says many of us feel that something is wrong, even if we can't define it. Now I'm going to read the rest of the book and see how good a job Beck does at defining our problems and articulating an answer.

A School Without Books

2009-10-06T17:21:00.001-07:00

Cushing Academy in Massachusetts is ditching it's 20,000 volume library. After all, who needs books when you can have a Kindle. I mean, we all know that reading on a Kindle is just the same, or even better than reading an actual book.

The problem is that nobody actually reads a Kindle. You read from a Kindle. It's an entirely different, and much more antiseptic experience. You'll never get "lost in a Kindle", and the head of Cushing Academy should be smart enough to know that.

Time Saving Tips for Presidents

2009-10-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

Matt Yglesias says cut the president some slack for not meeting more with his military commanders. After all, there's only so much time in the day.

A major financial crisis and global recession arose last fall. Dealing with that takes time. Obama, unlike Bush, acknowledges the scientific evidence that the world is poised on the brink of catastrophic climate change. Dealing with that takes time. There’s a need for new financial regulations. Dealing with that takes time. A new administration needs to appoint hundreds of people to various jobs and get them confirmed. That takes times. And the administration is trying to pursue comprehensive health care reform. That also takes time. Doing lots of things that take lots of time leaves less time for other things.

Well, in the interest of being a good American, and being part of the solution and not the problem, I would like to offer these handy time saving tips to current and future presidents.

1) Clear up a few hours on Sunday by NOT appearing on every television network except Fox. Stick with one or two at most, and outsource your other appearances to subordinates.

2) Don't take unneccessary foreign trips. Like, to Copenhagen, for example.

3) Kill two birds with one stone by inviting generals to "beer summits" with police officers and college professors.

4) Don't meet with the Dalai Lama. Boy can that guy talk. Looks like the president's already got this one covered though.

5) Order in.

Does Pride Still Goeth Before a Fall?

2009-09-29T09:12:00.001-07:00

I have to ask after seeing this story about the formerly affluent who now need assistance.

For the charities, the surge in demand has tested their resourcefulness -- and sometimes their patience. Not only must they stock millions of pounds of additional food in bigger warehouses, but they also must adopt fresh tactics to help the newly needy, who can be more bewildered, more emotional and more selective than their traditional clients.

One intake volunteer at Food for Others in Fairfax County, for example, has learned that the formerly affluent won't wait outside in line for food at evening neighborhood giveaways, lest they be spotted.

They'd rather go hungry than be seen getting help? That's not just absurd, it's pathetic.

Security Over Prosperity?

2009-09-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

That thought came to mind after reading this story.

By a ratio of nearly two-to-one, survey respondents say they would prefer a job that offers better security (59%) over one that offers higher pay (33%) but less stability.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a job that's secure over one that offers a greater reward with greater risk. In fact, at some point it's a pretty responsible attitude to have. I'm a husband and a father now, with responsibilities of my own. I'd prefer to have a job with some security, even if that means the chances of me becoming a billionaire are miniscule.

I do worry that this healthy attitude can have an unhealthy extreme, however. When you prefer security over everything else, you might as well just hire yourself out as a servant or volunteer to be a slave.

Building Buckley

2009-09-09T09:53:00.001-07:00

Over at The Next Right, I have a piece about the need for our generation to take charge of our destiny.

I'm 35-years old, and I've lived in the D.C. political universe for about five years now. While I keep my identity private on this blog, I move in the same social circles as most of the young conservatives inside the Beltway. The only problem is, we're not necessarily the young conservatives anymore. Neither are we a generation that has created anything to call our own (outside of blogs, which, to be perfectly frank, are as problematic as they are purposeful these days). I worry that my generation is wasting our opportunity. We have become a chattering class, not a creator class, and now seem content to tweet while Rome burns.

I want more from my generation. I want more from me.

What Do We Do When We Get There?

2009-09-08T15:28:00.001-07:00

Over at the Next Right, Rick Moran sums up the current intra-party conflict among conservatives in his post "Movement Conservatives vs. The Pragmatists: The Battle is Joined"

I could have just as easily titled this piece “Ideologues vs. The Realists” or some other descriptive caption for what boils down to a debate now fully underway among conservatives about the best way back to power.

Honestly, I didn't read the rest of what Moran wrote, beceause I was struck by the thought that Moran (and a lot of others on both sides of the argument) is misreading what this argument is about. This is not about finding the best way back to power. Our politics are cyclical, and the Republicans will have future success if for no other reason than the two party system is entrenched in our society and sooner or later (I'm guessing sooner) the party in power will screw up enough that people vote for the alternative. Want to really know the best way back to power? Just wait for it.

This fight is one of those arguments that flair up, almost generationally, to define conservatism itself. One could make the case that the argument actually started during the 2008 primary season, and we're now witnessing the populist/traditional conservative backlash to the failed candidacy of a moderate/pragmatic politician. Backdating the source of our current disagreement is less important, however, than simply and fundamentally recognizing that this isn't an argument about policy, it's an argument about philosophy.

In other words, sooner or later we'll be back in power. The real argument is, "What do we do when we get there?"

Addendum
Having quickly scanned Moran's post, here's one more thought.

The "modern" conservative movement was created largely in the 1950's with its culminating victory in the the 1980's. A lot has changed in the world since then. I'm of the opinion that a "post-modern" conservatism (however it may come to be defined) should be taken as seriously as the "modern" conservative movement. The arguments between the "elitists" and the "rubes" leaves out one distinct possibility: neither side is completely right, and neither side is completely wrong.

Rewriting History

2009-09-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

Retired USAF Lt. Col. William Astore says it's time to demilitarize our culture. There are some points I agree with (our support for soldiers should extend to their return home), some I disagree with (I don't find giant flags or military flyovers to be scary), and one statement I have to correct.

Astore, who's now a history professor, writes:

we shouldn't need reminding that this country was originally founded as a civilian society, not a militarized one. Indeed, the revolt of the 13 colonies against the King of England was sparked, in part, by the perceived tyranny of forced quartering of British troops in colonial homes, the heavy hand of an "occupation" army, and taxation that we were told went for our own defense, whether we wanted to be defended or not.

Actually, as far as societies go, our nation was much more militarized at its founding than it is today. True, we didn't have much of a standing army, but able-bodied men were expected to defend their homes, towns, and country against enemies foreign and domestic.

As for the revolt of the 13 colonies, the quartering of British troops before hostilities happened in one location (Boston), and that quartering took place as a result of the citizens of Boston's outright refusal to obey the Stamp Act. Further escalation of troops into Boston came after the destruction of tens of thousands of dollars in private property (the Tea Party). Yes, clearly the quartering of British troops was something that stuck in the craw of our Founding Generation (which is why we have the 3rd Amendment), but I wouldn't say it was a chief cause of the revolution in Massachusetts.

As for the "occupation army", the British troops weren't seen as interlopers or foreigners, because the vast majority of colonists considered themselves to be British, at least until Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was released in early 1776 (after Lexington, Concord, Fort Ticonderoga, and Bunker Hill). Paul Revere, despite what you may have read, never shouted "The British are coming!" on his midnight right. Instead, he yelled that the "Regulars" were on the march. This was a civil war, not an invasion by an occupying army.

Finally, the taxation issue wasn't about "taxation that we were told went for our own defense, whether we wanted to be defended or not." Oh, the colonists had no problem with defense. In fact, many of the older fighters in the American Revolution fought in the French and Indian War (including George Washington). The problem the colonists had was with the direct taxation from Parliament, rather than taxation through the state assemblies. Perhaps the professor remembers the phrase "No Taxation Without Representation"?

If Professor Astore wants to make his case, that's fine. There's no need to rewrite history, however.

We've Found Our "Change"

2009-08-04T00:29:00.000-07:00

The iconic poster of Obama has just met its conservative counterpart.

Even better is the fauxrage by Earl Ofari Hutchinson. We now have Los Angeles elitists declaring art to be dangerous.

"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."

"We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."

Hey Earl, have you ever googled "Bush Hitler"? Portraying the president as a comic book villian? Bush would've loved that in comparison.

A Culture of Effort

2009-07-24T10:50:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason (and mentally rebutting her about every two pages) when I came across a phrase that I really like. Here's the phrase in context.

The larger edifice of middlebrow culture, which once encompassed Americans of many social classes as well as ethnic and racial backgrounds, has collapsed. The disintegration and denigration of the middlebrow are closely linked to the political and class polarization that distinguishes the current wave of anti-intellectualism from the popular suspicion of highbrows nad eggheads that has always, to a greater or lesser degree, been a part of the American psyche. What has been lost is an alternative to mass popular culture, imbibed unconsciously and effortlessly through the audio and video portals that surround us all. What has been lost is the culture of effort.

Maybe our culture of vapid celebrities is what we deserve, considering how little effort most of us put into bettering ourselves these days.

The Embarrassed Empire

2009-07-23T10:18:00.001-07:00

Is it possible that the United States of America is the first empire in history to be embarrassed by what it is, rather than embrace greatness?

The Natives Are Restless

2009-07-08T17:15:00.000-07:00

Gallup's new survey has a very interesting figure.

From January 21st to July 7th, President Obama's disapproval rating has tripled, from 12% to 36%. At the same time, his approval rating has fallen from 68% to 56%.

Rasmussen's new poll suggests that more people now strongly disapprove of the President's peformance than strongly approve.

Disapproval has grown enormously, and the President's soft support has grown to account for more than half of his overall support. At the same time, most of those who are opposed to the President are strongly opposed. That's never a good sign.

In short, the natives are restless. Do these numbers suggest a tipping point in the not-too-distant future?

No Representation Until You Read the Legislation

2009-07-07T16:09:00.000-07:00

We're hearing talk of a new stimulus plan being offered. Obviously, I don't think many of you elected officials would be so foolish as to actually support this, but I also realize that even if the GOP were to oppose such legislation with unanimity, it would still pass.

I think Representative Boehner and the rest of the House GOP did a magnificant job of pointing out that a vote on legislation was going to take place without anyone having read the actual bill. That resonates with me, and it resonates with a lot of other Americans as well. If you're not even reading the legislation you're voting on, this country has a problem.

So here's my request: Have every Republican representative pledge that they will not vote for any stimulus bill or amendments until they, and the American people, have been able to read and study the legislation for some period of time. If the first stimulus wasn't enough, then we can wait a few weeks to debate another one in an informed manner. If Democrats try to hold a vote without elected officials and the American public having had a chance to pore over that bill and examine it closely, then it's time for the GOP to walk out of that chamber. An easy way for the GOP to reclaim its position as the party of grown-ups is to start acting like it. You won't be taking your ball and going home (as critics will allege), you will be refusing to be party to an act that your constituents have told you they find unacceptable. You can't vote on legislation that you haven't read and think that you're representing me. I can assure you, I wouldn't cast a vote on an enormous spending package without having read even the finest of print. I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one that feels that way. How can you claim to represent us until you've read the legislation and know what you're voting for or against?

Which means, of course, that we have to start telling our Republican representatives that we don't want a vote on this legislation until we know what's in the bill. I'm even sending a letter to my Democratic congressman, even though I doubt he'll pay it a second look. Hey, it just means I'll cough up another Andrew Jackson for his opponent.

The National Anthem of the Amehricans

2009-07-04T11:21:00.000-07:00

It's all right/It's all right./You can't be forever blessed./Still tomorrow's gonna be another working day/and I'm trying to get some rest./That's all, I'm trying to get some rest.

Let the Amehricans get their rest. For those who want to save the nation, it's time to get to work.

A-meh-rica Rising

2009-07-04T08:46:00.000-07:00

The new column is here. Also, Roger L. Simon's latest column might say 90% of what I wanted to say 100% better. It's a tough thing for someone to admit, but it's true.

The main disagreement I have with Mr. Simon's piece is this: I don't think Obama's over; not by a long shot. Someone so familiar with Saul Alinsky's teachings, and someone who so clearly subscribes to them, will not easily or readily cede power. Conversely, the GOP seems to be unable at the current time to mount a serious challenge to Obama's power.

Notes for a Holiday Weekend

2009-07-03T08:56:00.000-07:00

I should have a new piece going up at Pajamas Media later today. This was easily the hardest time I've had with writing anything of substance, and I think it was because there was just so much to say. Even reading over the piece now, I wish that I had made it a little longer. Oh the perils of being a verbose kind of guy in a Twitter world!

I do want to thank Roger L. Simon for providing me with the kick in the pants that got me to finish the piece. When I saw him use the phrase dying nation, it affirmed to me that I was on the right track with my own essay.

Tomorrow I'm off to my first Tea Party. I'll be attending one of the smaller events in northern Virginia rather than attempting to head into D.C. I'm hoping to come back full of praise, but regardless of how it turns out, I plan on a full accounting at some point over the weekend.

In the meantime, enjoy your Independence Day. I hope everyone will take a few moments to reflect on the men and women who made it all possible.

Obama's Foreign Policy: Status Quo

2009-06-29T17:17:00.000-07:00

When President Obama was running for the highest office in the land, his slogan was "Change". His entire campaign was based on that one simple and apparently meaningless word.

I think that's much more honest a slogan, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Despots, dictators, and tyrants take heart!

An Open Letter To My Congressman

2009-06-26T17:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Rep. ---------,

I'm very disappointed to see that you voted in favor of HR2454, but I can't say I'm really surprised. This would normally cause me to just complain to my friends about you, and then complain some more online, but this time I've decided to do something a little different.

I'm going to oppose you in your re-election. No, not personally. My wife's already said she'll divorce me if I ever decided to run for office, and I'd like to keep her around. No, I'm going to oppose you by supporting your opponent in 2010.

Of course I voted for your opponent last time too, but you still won. Here's the big difference: last time, I didn't donate any money, and I didn't donate any time to your opponent. This time it's going to be a little different.

Every time you vote against a bill that I consider to be an absolute legislative abomination, I'm going to put twenty bucks aside. All of that money will be donated to your general election opponent come October of 2010.

That's not all. Every time you cast a vote that proves you can't be trusted with the responsibility that comes with the office, I'm pledging to donate two hours of my time to the campaign of your general election opponent. That time will be spent manning phones, licking envelopes, knocking on doors... all of the things that up until now I never really wanted to do. Actually, I'd still prefer not doing it, but I will, because neither I, nor this country, can afford to have people like you taking and spending our money.

Consider yourself put on notice, Congressman. By the way, after I finish sending this to you, I'm emailing it to every friend I have in this district.

US Threatens Iran: We're Having a Totally Awesome Party and You Can't Come

2009-06-24T17:11:00.000-07:00

It occurs to me that telling the Iranian regime, "you can't come to our 4th of July parties" may be as colossal a misreading of a group of people as Marie Antoinette's, "let them eat cake!"

The regime is engaged in a power struggle for their very survival, and we tell them they can't have the potato salad and hot dogs that we were saving them.

The regime is killing dozens if not hundreds of innocent civilians, and we tell them that they're going to miss some great fireworks.

The regime is shutting down the press, and trying to block the release of information from Iran, and we tell them that no matter what, they're no longer invited to our party.

As if that wasn't pathetic enough, none of the Iranian diplomatic staff had ever replied to any of our embassies to accept the invitation.

The world isn't just watching Iran. They're watching us as well, and the actions of the past week must surely have the tinpot dictators and two bit despots rubbing their hands together with glee.

Obama, Bush, and the Price of Stability

2009-06-24T10:39:00.000-07:00

Has anyone else noticed that President Obama's response to events in Iran is very similar to the response by President George Herbert Walker Bush to the events in China 20 years ago? Both presidents offered muted responses to the outbreak of freedom, and neither offered much beyond platitudes in response to the violence committed against protestors.

In Bush's case, his treatment of the Tiananmen Square massacre became part of a larger narrative in his re-election bid in 1992. It was Bill Clinton and his campaign who chastised the President for failing to take a tougher stance with China in the wake of the events at Tiananmen Square. Now Clinton's wife is once again standing behind her man. The difference is, her "man" is President Barack Obama, and his policy towards Iran looks a lot like the same policy her husband criticized when he was running.

The chief argument made in favor of the 41/44 foreign policy is that it maintains "stability". It also maintains tyranny. Democrats spoke out against this policy twenty years ago, but they're fully supporting it today. Many Republicans opposed 41's policy at the time, and are at least being consistent in opposing the current policy of our President.

New Sayings Inspired By The Obama Administration

2009-06-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

"The only thing we have to fear is another country accusing us of meddling in democracy!"

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to speak up against it."

We Will Succeed, Even If We Have To Fight Alone

2009-06-17T13:21:00.000-07:00

While the White House blathers on about not wanting to meddle in Iran's affairs, those fighting for their self-determination seem a bit underwhelmed with the logic of President Obama and his spokesperson, Robert Gibbs.

"We are fighting with our lives and the world is just watching," said Ali, a Tehran University student who asked that his full name not be used. "They see how the government is trying to silence us, how they are beating us -- but they don't come to our help. It's OK. We will succeed, even if we have to fight alone."

That's because our president seems to have accidentally mailed his backbone to Gordon Brown along with the bust of Winston Churchill he felt clashed with the other decorations in the Oval Office. If it's any consolation, Ali, there are a lot of us here at home wondering what the hell our government is doing as well.

By the way, Mr. President, if these protestors do succeed, your attitude pretty much guarantees that nothing will be different with Iran's policy towards the United States. That'll be your fault, however, not the fault of the millions of people throughout Iran who are risking their lives in support of self-governance.

The Jig Is Up

2009-06-16T09:13:00.000-07:00

I thought this comment deserved a post of its own.

We’re broke! There is no money left! The middle class and wealthy, whose tax dollars for decades were thrown around to keep entire peoples from killing each other wholesale, will not exist within ten years in these United States, thus rendering our Treasury empty for a long time to come. The jig is up. Wake up already, and accept that an era has ended. It’s over. Something will take it’s place, for better or worse, but for pete’s sake, stop the mental anguish already. Nobody is particularly happy about it, but that’s the way it is. Something else: did you notice how all the money spent (trillions of dollars), all the diplomacy (manipulation), all the commentary, all the good intentions, decades of it, and people still want to kill each other wholesale and they still hold onto the very beliefs and ways of thinking that leave them impoverished and demoralized? Yeah. It’s a head-scratcher.

As I've said before, I believe that the United States has grown weaker over the last several decades, and much work has to be done to restore this nation to its full potential. Doing that while we face such grave threats to our national security will not be easy. It may not even be likely. Still, it must be done.

I will never believe that this country cannot be great again. I will never believe that we cannot reverse the declines. I will never believe that we have failed, that it is too late to change, that all hope is lost.

I will not allow myself to become a part of a movement that says our best days are behind us. I will fight as hard as I can, for as long as I can, to ensure that my children have a country on a firm foundation of liberty and prosperity, no matter how difficult it may be to get there.

Reaction to "America Sleeps"

2009-06-16T08:20:00.000-07:00

It's usually an exercise in frustration to read the comments of any column that gets posted at Pajamas Media. Someone invariably criticizes the headline of the piece (which I don't write, incidentally), there's the usual partisan back and forth, and then the thread usually devolves (or evolves, depending on your perspective) into something only tangentially related to what I'd written.

This time however, there were some interesting comments made. I figure this is as good a place as any to address them.

I enjoyed the energy in which you wrote about the situation in Iran, and how POTUS should respond. However, the America in which you wrote about does not exist anymore.

Our government has sold out to special interests, put us in hock to China, empowered and enriched themselves. We are lead by children.

Until we vote out the likes of BLT POTUS, SanFran Nan, Harry Reed, and Barney back door Frank, do not hope for what you have written.

First of all, I think the name-calling, especially one sentence after saying "We are lead by children" really detracts from what the writer had to say. I don't disagree with his premise, but here's the bottom line: if we're lead by children and we want it to change, then it is up to us to be the grownups. It doesn't matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to point out that Barney Frank is gay (and frankly, I'm not even sure why that matters), but as soon as you start with the juvenile name calling, you lose credibility.

Secondly, it may be true that the America I spoke of no longer exists, but I don't believe that's the case. When conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1, that tells me that the biggest thing we've "lost" is motivation and desire to get our country back on track. I don't deny that there are big problems in this country, problems that date back decades and are deeply entrenched in American culture and policy. None of these problems are unfixable, however, as long as we have the courage and commitment do so.

I see all the people in the streets, being oppressed by Ahmadinejad’s goons, and I feel so much compassion for them.

Until I remember that they are supporting another Israel-hating Jew-annihilationist thug. At the drop of the hat, aren’t these the same mobs that will be burning the American flag and cheering as bombs fall on schoolgirls in Israel? This is no Cedar or Orange revolution, is it?

There were several comments that fell along these lines; that we should not concern ourselves with these events, because the freedom lovers of Tehran are still haters of the United States. That may be true in some cases, I doubt it is true for all of them. Still, I’d much prefer the lovers of freedom be in charge instead of the autocratic despots, even if both groups hate me. The lover of freedom can grow into the responsibilities of self-government, because they have a incentive to do so. The autocratic despots, on the other hand, have no such incentive. Give me a freedom-loving, America hating democracy and in 20 years it stands a good chance of being an ally. Not so much with the America-hating dictatorships.

Dude, I have to disagree with your use of the word opposition, Mousavi & Ahmadinejad are one in the same. Mousavi is more representative of the old guard, while Ahmadinejad is emblematic of the next generation of revolutionaries. Both are ultra loyal to the tyrannical Ayatollah whose mullahcracy controls the governmental, economic, social, military, diplomatic and religious affairs of every Iranian. No free speech, means no free press, means no free thought, means no critique, means no opposition.

Events on the ground would seem to be proving him wrong. Besides, this is less about Mousavi than it is about the millions of people turning out across Iran.

So if Obama goes to the UN and denounces the election. Or if McCain had been elected (I voted for him), he would have rallied international support for the democratic uprising and gave his full unconditional support…..

Isn’t that all forms of diplomacy, which some of you abhor? You can rally all the support outside Iran you want. But how is that going to bring down the theocrats? Or maybe you folks haven’t thought of that?

Of course, if we weren’t still bogged down in Bush’s Iraq adventure, maybe we could place some military pressure on Iran. Or maybe not?

I’ll offer the situation in Iran is far more complex than some of you think. After all, we fought an 8 year proxy war with Iran in the 1980s and there was no change in Iranian government. You all do remember that the Reagan administration supported Saddam in the ’80s and supported the Iranian Mujahadeen, based in Iraq, don’t you?

You can blame Obama all you want. But I have yet to see any solution posted from any of you that will bring about regime change in Tehran.

If we're lucky, the Iranian people can bring about regime change themselves, though I think we should be providing at least moral support. If, on the other hand, the opposition fails, then I believe we (and by "we", I mean you and I, not the politicians in Washington) have to accept the fact that the Iranian regime is committed to waging war against any who try to stand up to them, including their own population... and ours.

We’re broke! There is no money left! The middle class and wealthy, whose tax dollars for decades were thrown around to keep entire peoples from killing each other wholesale, will not exist within ten years in these United States, thus rendering our Treasury empty for a long time to come. The jig is up. Wake up already, and accept that an era has ended. It’s over. Something will take it’s place, for better or worse, but for pete’s sake, stop the mental anguish already. Nobody is particularly happy about it, but that’s the way it is. Something else: did you notice how all the money spent (trillions of dollars), all the diplomacy (manipulation), all the commentary, all the good intentions, decades of it, and people still want to kill each other wholesale and they still hold onto the very beliefs and ways of thinking that leave them impoverished and demoralized? Yeah. It’s a head-scratcher.

Actually, this one deserves a post all of its own.

America Snoring

2009-06-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

I haven't forgotten about my post on how Republicans can start to make an impact in our urban areas (in fact, it's turning into quite a lengthy piece), but events in Iran have made me put that topic on the back burner for now.

I'm very pleased that Pajamas Media has posted my latest column. We are now clearly facing a regime, not a country, and our response to the crackdown on democracy in Iran has been, in a word, un-American. The silence from our president is appalling, and I would encourage the American people to raise their voices in solidarity with the Iranian people who demand a free and fair election, since our President evidentally has no desire to do so.

Why Does James Carville Hate America?

2009-06-07T11:13:00.000-07:00

James Carville's new book 40 More Years might be one of the more frightening books on the shelves these days.

What happens to a society after 40 years of Democratic rule? Look at Detroit, where the last Republican mayor stepped down in 1962. A third of the city is below the poverty line. Nearly half of all children under the age of five live in poverty. The violent crime rate is more than three times the national average. Less than 1/4 of high school freshmen go on to graduate. How's that Democratic majority working out for ya, Detroit?

Detroit's a festering cesspool though. How about Chicago? It last had a Republican mayor in 1931! The poverty rate in 2007 was 20 percent, far above the national average. The violent crime rate is more than twice the national average. The high school graduation rate is 52.2 percent, far below the national average (but good enough that Arne Duncan, former superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, is now our U.S. Secretary of Education!).

Washington, D.C. has never had a Republican mayor. Philadelphia's last Republican mayor was 1952. St. Louis last had a Republican mayor in 1949. Buffalo's last GOP mayor was 1965. New Orleans, Oakland, San Francisco, Camden... not a single Republican mayor within the past 40 years.

I look at that list, and I see misery for the residents, and opportunity for Republicans. Yes, it would be an uphill climb. It may even be necessary to run as Democrats to begin with, but I've always believed that conservatism should work for everyone, not just suburban and rural voters.

What kind of conservative message could sell in these one-party towns? That'll be the subject of my next post.

Administrative Despotism

2009-06-03T13:30:00.000-07:00

Eric Scheie notes the fact that people seem afraid to use the term "socialist" to describe Barack Obama's policies, though they certainly bear a striking resemblance to socialism.

Eric wonders who "owns" the word these days, but I think it's less a question of ownership than of our collective mangling of what words like socialism really mean. Regardless, "socialism" is one of those "It-can't-happen-here" words, like communism and facism. This is America! We can't be socialist, or facisct, or communist. We're Americans!

That, of course, is ridiculous. We can be whatever we want to be, or (perhaps more appropriately) whatever we allow ourselves to be. I've been quoting from Toqueville's "Democracy in America" lately, and I find it interesting that when Toqueville was describing despotism in a democratic society, he had a difficult time coming up with a word that would fit what he was describing.

I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

Toqueville did just that, and I think that chapter of "Democracy in America" should be required reading for every American voter. The entirety of the piece is too long to quote, but here's another snippet.

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.

I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.

I'm sure many will disagree, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the United States of America has fallen into such a state. Administrative despotism is in full sway in this country, but Barack Obama is not the instigator. In fact, I believe that I have lived the entirety of my existance in country which has given itself over to that unnamed menace that Toqueville warned us about. This is not Barack Obama's doing, though his adventures are certainly leading us further down the wrong road. Still, he is only vigorously and substantially building on despotic policies that were in place long before he assumed office.

Our republic has been buried underneath the rubble of decades of partisan political battles, to the point that there's not much of the original country and culture left for us to see. When we began healing ourselves with other people's money, paying for our retirement on the backs of our children and grandchildren, placing them further in debt so we can enjoy our own life a fundamental aspect of Americanism was destroyed. When the dream of opportunity for all was replaced with the reality of entitlements for some, when government deemed certain businesses "too big to fail", when "citizen" became synonymous with "resident", when the very framework of our government became subject to not just interpretation, but re-imagining, when we decided that every aspect of our lives, from the food that we eat to the pillows on our beds should be subject to governmental regulation, the nature and purpose of our government became something very different than what our founders put in place.

Our parents and grandparents, even as they fought the biggest external threat to Western Democracy, dreamed an impossible dream: that the United States could maintain its greatness even as it discouraged greatness in its citizens. The schemes they devised gave us an Indian Summer of prosperity and success, but only by delaying the inevitable costs associated with their utopian vision. Now the bill has come due, and we are confronted with a decision: pay now, or force our children into a life of misery and servitude.

Can we get restore our nation? I honestly don't know. Still, that doesn't mean that we are bound to endure the future miseries of a fully failed state. As Thomas Paine said, we have the power to begin the world anew. Other generations have had to make do with admiring men and women like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, James Madison, Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adams, Eliza Pinckney, Phyllis Wheatley, etc. We, however, are asked to do more than just pay homage to them. Our generation has been tasked with emulating them. Just like our forefathers, who were called to create this nation, and our grandfathers, who were called to defend it, our generation must restore the principles of this nation, and in doing so, dismantle the Leviathan that has grown around our system of government.

Despotism In An Age Of Equality

2009-06-01T08:18:00.000-07:00

From Democracry in America:

The nature of despotic power in democratic ages is not be fierce or cruel, but minute and meddling. Despotism of this kind, though it odes not trample on humanity, is directly opposed to the genius of commerce and the pursuits of industry.
...
I readily admit that public tranquillity is a great good, but at the same time I cannot forget that all nations have been enslaved by being kept in good order. Certainly it is not to be inferred that nations ought to despise public tranquillity, but that state ought not to content them. A nation that asks nothing of its government but the maintenance of order is already a slave at heart, the slave of its own well-being, awaiting only the hand that will bind it. By such a nation the despotism of faction is not less to be dreaded than the despotism of an individual. When the bulk of the community are engrossed by private concerns, the smallest parties need not despair of getting the upper hand in public affairs. At such times it is not rare to see on the great stage of the world, as we see in our theaters, a multitude represented by a few players, who alone speak in the name of an absent or inattentive crowd: they alone are in action, while all others are stationary; they regulate everything by their own caprice; they change the laws and tyrannize at will over the manners of the country, and then men wonder to see into how small a number of weak and worthless hands a great people may fall.

Just something to think about.

Greetings from the Great Divide

2009-05-31T18:46:00.000-07:00

Two quick pictures from a recent trip to Barnes and Noble.

I thought it was interesting that the Ayn Rand collection now has its own end cap. Apparently more people are "going Galt" than what the media would have us believe.

In the current events section, I couldn't help but notice that the hyperbole is getting worse.

It might be kind of hard to read, but one of the books on the top shelf is Jack Cafferty's "Now or Never", which says if we don't apply Cafferty's ideas to the country, all will soon be lost.

On the next shelf down is Ross Clark's "The Road to Big Brother", all about the survelliance society that is England, and how it is transforming America as well.

I got the sense, while perusing the latest books, that the Great Divide between left and right is growing bigger by the day, with both sides believing that big changes must come, or else the idea of America could vanish forever. I'm not discounting the possibility, but I'm starting to wonder if our idea of America (the conservative one) isn't already gone.

Toqueville on The Myth of Equality

2009-05-31T13:31:00.001-07:00

From Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America, Chapter XIII: Causes of the Restless Spirit of the Americans in the Midst of Their Prosperity

It is possible to conceive of men arrived at a degree of freedom that should completely content them; they would then enjoy their independence without anxiety and without impatience. But men will never establish any equality with which they can be contented. Whatever efforts a people may make, they will never succeed in reducing all the conditions of society to a perfect level; and even if they unhappily attained that absolute and complete equality of position, the inequality of minds would still remain, which, coming directly from the hand of God, will forever escape the laws of man. However democratic, then, the social state and the political constitution of a people may be, it is certain that every member of the community will always find out several points about him which overlook his own position; and we may foresee that his looks will be doggedly fixed in that direction. When inequality of conditions is the common law of society, the most marked inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on the same level, the slightest are marked enough to hurt it. Hence the desire of equality always becomes more insatiable in proportion as equality is more complete.

The Great Divide

2009-05-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

Taking a look at the Gallup Survey polling on gay marriage, I was really struck by the partisan divide. Overall, Americans oppose gay marriage 57-40. Among liberals, however, 75% support gay marriage, while 80% of conservatives oppose it.

Moderates are splity roughly 50/50, which leaves me wondering how on earth we can expect to find a single solution to make every American happy?

As a conservative, I view the pushing of this issue as less of an "equal rights" struggle and more of a "philosophical mandate". Of course I say that as a heterosexual married male, but frankly, my view doesn't matter one iota less than that of any other American (or more correctly, it shouldn't matter less). At some point the governmental meddling in every social issue is going to lead to an imposition of a philosophy that tens of millions of Americans are opposed to. Maybe instead of opposing gay marriage, abortion, etc... the new Republican Party could simply say that these aren't areas in which the government needs to be involved (a pipe dream, to be sure).

Must Read: The Protean Corporation

2009-05-24T11:30:00.001-07:00

Michael Malone is thinking big thoughts about the next model for corporations.

Spot the Facism, Volume I

2009-05-24T11:11:00.001-07:00

In my opinion, one of the most important political books of my generation is Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Facism. I've read it several times now, and each time I'm struck by the author's ability to highlight the facist and totalitarian themes in modern politics (both liberal and conservative). It is without a doubt a nice Facism, but it's still facism.

Case in point: Parade Magazine's profile of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. There were two quotes that really stuck out with me.

Napolitano refuses to prioritize among the threats. Job one, she insists, is to “help keep the nation in a state of readiness and help assure the American people that we are prepared and resilient.”

Facism can only thrive in a state of crisis. How exactly is a "state of readiness" different than a state of eternal crisis?

But the secretary says she is inspired by the seriousness of the challenges of her new role. “It’s a time in history that won’t come again,” she says.

Facism is, like all utopian dreams, intent on remaking the world. It's true that this time in history won't come again. That doesn't automatically mean that this needs to be an auspicious time in history, nor does it automatically mean that Janet Napolitano's dream of what can be done at this moment in history is right.

Signs of the Cultural Apocalypse Vol. II

2009-05-19T12:19:00.000-07:00

A father in Ohio called 911 because his son wouldn't clean his room.

The son is 28. And a school board member. Oh yeah, and a political consultant. He lives rent free in a room in his parents' basement.

Dad says he's not going to press charges because he doesn't want to ruin his son's political career. At this point, I'm not sure an arrest would make things any worse.

Can someone please run against Andrew C.M. Mizsak in Bedford, Ohio? His term expires this year, and I'd love to see a candidate run on the platform of "At Least I Don't Live In My Dad's Basement".

Column Bleg

2009-05-18T20:45:00.000-07:00

I've got too many ideas for columns/blog posts swirling around in my head, and not a lot of free time to write this week. If anybody wants to help me out here, I'm going to list two headlines, and I'll let you pick which one I should focus on this week. Just send your vote to e-a-r-l-c-l-a-r-e-n-d-o-n-at-g-m-a-i-l-d-o-t-c-o-m. (obviously without all the hyphens).

Here are your choices of topics:

-Don't Fear the Reaper

-Failure's Not Just An Option, It's a Reality

I'll tally up the votes (of course I'll be thrilled if I get one or two) and post the results on Tuesday night.

Thoughful Conservatism

2009-05-11T08:41:00.001-07:00

My piece on Thoughtful Conservatism is up at Pajamas Media now. Many thanks to the PJM staff for using it.

What Would Saul Alinsky Do?

2009-05-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

As President Obama tries to decide what, if anything, should happen to the former officials in the Bush administration for allowing waterboarding to take place, I’m sure he’s getting advice from all kinds of people. There is one person, however, that Obama seems to be ignorning on this issue, even though he’s been a big influence on the president when it comes to domestic policy. Perhaps it’s time that President Obama ponder the question, “What would Saul Alinsky do?”

I’m sure most liberals would automatically assume that Alinsky would never condone an activity like waterboarding. They would be wrong. In his 1971 manifesto Rules for Radicals, Alinsky made it perfectly clear that, unlike the president, he wouldn’t say that waterboarding “violates our ideals and our values”.

Alinsky wrote, “The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s ‘conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action’; one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of ‘personal salvation’; he doesn’t care enough for people to be ‘corrupted’ for them.”

What American value is violated by allowing interrogators to use coercive techniques on interrogation subjects? The sanctity of life? The inherent dignity of all mankind? Alinsky would find it preposterous that we would think that risking the lives of innocent civilians is worth it, as long as the dignity of our enemies is left intact.

Alinsky was (rather oxymoronically) an absolutist when it came to pragmatism. Throughout Rules for Radicals he exhorts his followers to see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. When you view the world through clear lenses, you see that we have an enemy that is devoted to killing as many American civilians as possible. Our enemy has declared war on us, and the fact that we no longer say we’re engaged in a War on Terror doesn’t change that. Alinsky’s third rule of the ethics of ends and means is this: in war, the end justifies almost any means. In fact, Alinsky wrote, “Agreements on the Geneva rules on treatment of prisoners or use of nuclear weapons are observed only because the enemy or his potential allies might retaliate.”

If that’s true, then we should be under no practical or pragmatic obligation to refrain from coercive interrogation techniques. After all, we’ve seen that our enemy doesn’t operate under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Alinsky points to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, “believing that the civil courts were powerless to cope with the insurrectionist activities of civilians. ‘Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert…’”

Under Alinsky’s view of the ethics of means and ends, coercive techniques like waterboarding are hardly controversial. After all, no one dies. No one is physically harmed. In fact, considering the brutality of our enemies, one can imagine a National Security Advisor Alinsky encouraging the President to “do whatever it takes” to ensure the survival of as many Americans as possible, even if that meant a suspected terrorist had to feel like he was drowning.

There is one caveat to this argument, and it is this; Alinsky made it clear that (in his mind), the world is divided up between the “Haves”, the “Have Nots”, and the “Have A Little/Want Mores”. It’s been quite some time since Barack Obama lived in the world of the “Have Nots”, so maybe he feels that Alinsky’s rules no longer apply. I’m not convinced. This is, after all, an administration that seems to apply Alinsky’s ethics of means and ends on an almost daily basis. Need new pictures of Air Force One in action? Who cares if it terrorizes thousands of New Yorkers, let’s go buzz the Statue of Liberty! Have a failing car company? Force executives to leave and hand over control to the auto union! If Alinsky’s ethics of means and ends has found a home in our domestic policy, but is being ignored when it comes to foreign policy, the only explanation for this contradiction that I can see is that forgoing the use of coercive techniques (and putting them forever off limits by calling them torture) is, in Obama’s mind, a worthy means to an end. That leaves me with one question: Just what is the end President Obama is seeking?

Thought for the Day

2009-05-01T10:48:00.000-07:00

Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself. - Jean Francois Revel

Signs of the Cultural Apocalypse

2009-04-28T15:57:00.001-07:00

Behold Octo-Mom the Musical and weep, for we are a generation bereft of culture.

The End of the Left-Right Political Model?

2009-04-26T12:02:00.000-07:00

We think we live in a left-right world, but I’m not so sure that’s the case anymore. If, as Nicholas Nassim Taleb says, we now live in Extremistan, then why do we not see our world as made up of “Extreministas” and “Moderationals”?

In the book “Gross National Happiness”, Arthur Brooks points out that self-described “extreme” conservatives and “extreme” liberals make up 10-20% of the population. Yet they are the ones that seem to be in control of the political process. Political primaries are dominated by the extremes. In 2004, for instance, 1.53 million people voted in Texas primaries (840,000 Republicans and 690,000 Democrats), but 7.4 million people voted in the general elections in the state. That means the primary turnout was just 20% the size of the general election. Yet the primaries are ultimately where “Moderationals” can make the most difference.

What’s wrong with Extreministas? There’s nothing inherently wrong with being passionate about your own beliefs, but the partisan rancor exhibited by both extremes actually makes us unhappy as a society, according to Brooks. Using “feeling thermometers”, political scientists can use public opinion polls to try and chart how we feel about our political opponents. Researchers use a “likeability” scale of 0-100, and ask respondents to rate both themselves and those they disagree with, with the higher score being better. According to Brooks, “in 2004, conservatives gave themselves a toasty average score of 81, but gave liberals a cool 39. Liberals gave themselves 75 but rated conservatives 38.” These are just your garden variety voters. The Extreministas on the left and the right give their ideological opposites scores that are less than 20. By comparison, in 2006 the country of Iran scored an average of 27. The people who make up the most involved portion of the electorate hate their fellow Americans more than they hate the leaders of a country that shout “Death to America” during parliamentary sessions. I don’t see how that fact can be a good thing for the political health of this country.

Now This Is What I'm Talking About

2009-04-22T13:30:00.000-07:00

Great news from Michelle Malkin.

In Woonsocket, RI, Tea Party activists swarmed the City Council and stopped massive new supplemental tax hikes to bail out the public school district. The tax measure, which had been expected to pass 6-1, went down by a 4-3 vote (hat tip - Granite Grok):

It's like I said a few weeks ago:

Still, if 3,000 people can show up for a Tea Party rally in Greensburg, South Carolina, can 300 show up at Greensburg’s City Council Meeting? If 1500 people rally in St. Louis, can 150 of them sit in the council chambers for the same purpose? Have you watched a typical city council meeting lately? No one’s there, and those who are there are usually an odd mixture of the intense lone citizen, the interested businessman, perhaps a field trip or two, and those with specific business before the council. City councils usually don’t see large groups like the Tea Party Movement, and those large groups can have a big impact legislatively and in the media when they come together in the arena.

Nice job, Woonsocket.

Responsibility in the Age of Entitlement

2009-04-21T08:55:00.000-07:00

I'm still (slowly) working on my piece about public virtue, but in the meantime I ran across this story and thought it was appropriate to the discussion of the Age of Responsibility.

Joseph Sabol is a 27-year old recent college graduate who's looking for work. Nothing out of the ordinary there. But Sabol's grabbing attention by hanging out at a busy intersection in Lancaster, PA with a sign that says "College grad looking for employment" on it. Sabol's actually received 17 different interview opportunities, but he's still out on the street. Why?

James Wenger, owner of Lancaster Nissan, said he called Sabol on Tuesday and asked him to come in for an interview. Wenger said he offered Sabol an interview for a sales position that within five years could earn as much as $100,000 annually with benefits.

Sabol turned Wenger down.

"For him to not even want to come out and do an interview was really disgusting," Wenger said. "We're supposed to feel sorry for you. Sometimes you don't get what you want and have to make sacrifices.

"So if he can't have the ideal job, ideal hours, ideal pay, then he'll just sit around and be a victim?"

Sabol said his dream job is marketing assistant for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but he is looking to use his degree to go into any sports team marketing, and he is willing to relocate.

"I want my job to be the perfect fit for me," Sabol said. "I'm not going to just accept anything. I want a job to fit my career goals and dreams."

My first job out of college was the graveyard shift at K-Mart, working as a stockboy. On my days off I worked the graveyard shift as a cook at Hardee's. Fifteen years later (give or take), I'm no longer in retail. In fact, I've worked my way up to a close approximation of my dream job, but it's taken a lot of hard work and effort. I've had to push myself, and when I've felt like slacking I've been blessed to have family and friends that have pushed me. Unfortunately, Mr. Sabol doesn't have the same support system.

Sabol said he has the support of his wife and mother, who originally gave him the idea to take his plea to the streets. He said his mother is very proud of him and is hoping for the best.

His said his wife, Shani, finds it amusing to see pictures of him on the street corner.

"I will be at this as long as it takes. I want to start my career and fulfill my career endeavors," Sabol said. "I'm extremely optimistic.

"I just have to keep working hard, and good things will happen."

You're 27 years old, and you have no job. You aren't working hard, and your wife and mother are enabling you. You're 27 years old and you are still a child. Joey Sabol, you've got a lot of growing up to do.

The sad thing is, I don't think Sabol's really all that unusual, even if his method of getting his "dream job" is out of the ordinary. The children of helicopter parents are graduating college and should be entering the real world, but far too many of them have false expectations and entitlements. They don't work hard; in fact, I don't think they're capable of working hard in a job that is unsatisfying.

Before we can usher in the Age of Responsibility, we have to destroy the Age of Entitlement. Sabol's wife and mother could do their part by not encouraging such childish behavior from a 27-year old man. We can do our part by not encouraging similar childish behavior from our own family and friends. Having a dream is great, but dreams should never be more important than our waking lives. Dreams may or may not come true, but our life moves forward whether we like it or not. Keep living in dreamland, and you may soon find that real opportunity has passed you by.

Why I'm Not Going

2009-04-14T22:15:00.000-07:00

I was all set to go to the Washington Tea Party today. I even had my shirt picked out; a picture of Obama wearing a set of mouse ears. I was excited. I was ready. And then I saw a press release of the guest speakers.

First of all, who needs speakers? It's a protest, not a rally. I heard Rush Limbaugh say last week that he was too famous to go to a Tea Party protest, and he was right. Once famous people get involved, they inevitably become the focus of the event. Sadly, in the absence of real famous people, the organizers of the Tea Party protest decided to go with people who could be described as "famous to conservatives." That leads me to the second reason I will not be attending: Alan Keyes is speaking, and Alan Keyes doesn't speak for me.

I shouldn't single Keyes out, even though he's not who I want representing me in the eyes of the media. The truth of the matter is, I don't want Laura Ingraham representing me either, or Grover Norquist, no matter how much I may have in common with their political views. I thought the Tea Party was supposed be about us, which is what made it different. Rush Limbaugh understands this, which is why he wisely stayed away. It's an amazingly selfless act, and one that hasn't been much repeated by others in the conservative community. Why do we need anybody representing us? Isn't the point of all of this for the government to hear from We the People? If anybody is representing us on stage, it should be the local business owner who's going to have to cut jobs because of tax increases, or the police officer who sees good colleagues leaving because of budget shortfalls, shortfalls that aren't relieved by stimulus money. For God's sakes, if people have to speak, let them be people, not pundits.

The Tea Party movement didn't need this, the sad parade of B-list conservative celebrities all too eager to attach their name to the cause. The movement did start organically, even if it was soon co-opted by a political machine that politicizes and makes partisan even the most important of issues. Once that issue becomes just another "conservative" thing, all hope of real victory is lost. It is just something else that conservatives will be mocked for, because that is what we do to our political opponents these days. I imagine there'll be a lot of mocking of our opponents at the Washington Tea Party today, because both sides are equally guilty of the practice.

And yet, the organizers of the D.C. Tea Party invited these pundits to assume leadership, or at least prominence, in the movement. By doing so, I can't help but feel like they've killed something very important. I don't know why they felt it was so important to have partisans play such a large role in today's events. Maybe they simply thought it was a good idea. If so, they were wrong.

If this were a liberal rally, it wouldn't be Alan Keyes speaking, it would be Dennis Kucinich. It wouldn't be Laura Ingraham, it would be Rachel Maddow. And conservatives would mock the bejeezus out of it for being a political Woodstock for the lunatic fringe.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, because I wanted for this to work so badly. The post that started this blog was probably a little too rah-rah in retrospect. Perhaps I'm guilty of idealistically thinking that something "of the people" could remain "of the people" in this day and age. Perhaps I'm incurable, because I'm still looking for ways to turn this around.

There is one thing I've come up with. The organizers of the Tea Party have scheduled the next event for July 4th. Let all Americans, of every political stripe, feel welcome with others who share their concern and disgust over the prospect of continued government bailouts. Leave the polarizing figures behind. You don't need them for this. There's a lot at stake here, and we can't afford to screw it up.

At the end of my first post, I quoted from Joseph Warren's speech commemorating the Boston Massacre in 1775, just a few weeks before the first shots were fired on Lexington Green. I'll repeat them here, because now more than ever, he speaks to us.

On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.

Can There Be An Age Of Responsibility?

2009-04-14T16:51:00.000-07:00

I recently read Matthew Continetti's well done article on the Age of Irresponsibility and the need for a new cultural maturity. Continetti does a fantastic job of laying out the damage that our current irresponsibility is causing, and why we need to change. What is left unclear, however, is how to make those cultural changes.

Is an Age of Responsibility even possible? Continetti provides us with no clear example of a past culture or society that has acheived this golden age, choosing instead to focus on individual failures of our political, moral, and cultural leaders (President Bill Clinton and heiress/whore Paris Hilton get a lot of deserved atttention). Contrasting those negative cultural influences, Continetti again offers not a society, but individual examples of how we ought to be: General David Petraeus and Captain Sully Sullenberger.

It is interesting to note that both of these examples are men with earned titles to their name, already placing them apart from the population at large, just like the celebrities and political leaders Continetti cites as negative influences on our culture. But in America, anyone can be president, or a movie star, or a slutty heiress. It takes training, skill, and leadership to become a general, and hundreds of hours of training to become a pilot of commercial aircraft. Petreaus and Sullenberger, therefore, may be held up as ideal role models, but their skillsets place them apart from us in a way that typical celebrity-hood or fame does not.

It also seems a little odd to me that an heiress can damage society merely be showing off her hoo-hoo, while in order to save society we have to win a war or land a crashing airplane. It seems like the negative and positive role models Continetti refers to are more than a bit off balance. Do our positive role models really always need to engage in life-saving or world-changing events to have an impact on society and culture?

More importantly, do we even need role models? Does not being responsible require us to "put away childish things"? Mitty-esque fantasizing and fascination with the famous has cheapened and made juvenile the American Dream (as discussed in David Kamp's Rethinking the American Dream). A responsible adult doesn't take their moral cues from their President, a movie star, or an airline pilot. Responsible adults don't require role models, they are role models. Mature, responsible, reasoning, and rational adults don't require a certain number of role models in society before they begin following their example. They are the example.

This is where the idea of a Responsible Age runs headlong into the reality that we are a generation with few compelling reasons to be responsible, thanks to (among other things) technological innovation, the American ideal of industry, government bureaucracy, and a cultural tolerance of selfishness that would make most of our ancestors turn away from us in embarrassment. These factors (and note that there are most certainly benefits to these factors as well) affect us in a thousand different ways: I don't need to remember when our best friend's birthday is; that's what my Blackberry is for! I don't need to make sure that the poor in our community have food on their table, that's one reason I pay taxes. I'd love to stay at home with my kids, but we both have to work to make it. I don't want to stay at home with my kids when I have such a promising career. She's 2,000 miles away... she'll never know about what happens tonight.

We keep saying that we need to change, we keep explaining why we need to change, but to date I haven't seen anyone articulate how we're supposed to change society. I wonder if it's because it may be impossible to do so.

We may truly be moving towards a new Dark Age, where instruction and knowledge has become so specified that little common ground can be found. Instead, we fractiously debate (and increasingly just yell) over every debatable social, cultural, and scientific trend. There is no right or wrong, just different ideas. Cultural consensus means that you have 51% of the voters on your side, which is a far different definition than we have had throughout most of human history. At the same time, our genuine knowledge has become so specialized that many Americans are arguing passionately about issues that they know very little about. As society becomes less knowledgeable, our concept of knowledge is changing. Someone with what was considered cursory knowledge of an issue 100 years ago would be seen today as a lay expert on the subject. Just look at how many pundits on our cable news shows are expected to opine about all kinds of subject matter, even if they aren't too familiar with the topic at hand. Ignorance and expertise are no longer mutually exclusive states of mind, at least on our broadcasts.

Responsibility and maturity may not be the exact same thing, but as a friend of mine says, they're in the same zip code. Maturity comes in part through experience, but in our modern age we don't often rely on the experience of past generations. In fact, most of us feel that the past doesn't really matter much these days. As Diane Ravitch says:

We can't have thoughtful public discussions of issues when the public is so woefully uninformed about the past. We have allowed our culture to be seduced, ensnared, and dumbed down by a vacuous popular culture. If we gave tests that asked about rock stars and movies, our students and the general public would get high grades. We can be certain that the public knows more about Paris Hilton than George Washington.

Without a public that knows its history, without political intelligence widely dispersed, we can anticipate a future in which our politics is continually degraded to the lowest common denominator.

Our lack of historical knowledge helps to keep us irresponsible, because our ignorance acts like a pair of blinders, narrowing our focus towards the unknowable future while paying no mind to the (somewhat) knowable past.

This, of course, is just one aspect of our irresponsibility. Another aspect is the fact that our cultural spirituality is dying. It doesn't take a Christian to be a good person, and sitting in a pew on Sunday mornings won't automatically make someone responsible, but Christianity is better than no spiritual or moral code at all, isn't it? This Gallup Poll certainly suggests that regular church attendance has some bearing or relationship to how one feels about various social issues.

Can "virtuous" be used interchangeably with the word "responsible"? I believe our founders certainly thought so. Public virtue was seen as necessary for the future of the Republic, and men as disparate in their views as Benjamin Franklin ("Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.") and John Adams ("Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.") believed that the United States needed virtuous citizens, who in turn would become or elect virtuous leaders.

In my next entry, I'll take a closer look at the philosophical foundations of public virtue, and whether or not our society can reasonably be called virtuous in nature.

Vico and the Descending Age of Heroes

2009-04-08T16:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading about the political philosopher Vico earlier tonight. He had a fascinating theory about the ages of civilization; namely that we have three ages: The Divine (in which authority is derived from God), the Age of Heroes (in which the living embodiment of idealized figures have the authority), and the Age of Man (in which the citizens as a whole possess authority). You don't cycle through these stages, but instead societies rise and fall. Really, instead of the three stages that are commonly referred to, there are six: The Divine Age*, Divine Ascending, Heroes** Ascending, The Age of Man Ascending, The Age of Man Descending, and Heroes Descending.

I'm reasonably sure we're in the Age of Heroes (and obviously there are cultural remnants left from previous cycles, so you'll find evidence of the Ages of Man and the Age of Divine throughout our culture). Moreover, I'm fairly sure we're descending into the Age of Heroes, if we're not already there.

Anyway, if you want to read the passage I'm talking about, here it is.

This New Science or metaphysic, studying the common nature of nations in the light of divine providence, discovers the origins of divine and human institutions among the gentile nations, and thereby establishes a system of he natural law of the gentes, which proceeds with the greatest equality and constancy through the three ages which the Egyptians handed down to us as the three periods through which the world has passed up to their time. These are (1) The age of the gods, in which the gentiles believed they lived under divine governments, and everything was commanded them by auspices and oracles, which are the oldest institutions in profane history. (2) The age of the heroes, in which they reigned everywhere in aristocratic commonwealths, on account of a certain superiority of nature which they held themselves to have over the plebs. (3) The age of men, in which all men recognized themselves as equal in human nature, and therefore there were established first the popular commonwealths and then the monarchies, both of which are forms of human government.

Here are some of my questions, and I'd love to read your theories, because I have no idea what the answers are: how long do these ages last? Can technology shorten the lifespan of an age? Can technology prolongue it? What happens when competing cultures operating at different points on the wave collide? Our enemies, the Islamofascists, are clearly living in the Divine Age, doing what God (in the form of their mullahs and clerics) tells them to do. Are we in the Age of Heroes, or are we in the Age of Man?

I think the rise of democratic societies really started about 233 years ago (okay, to be honest, you could go back to the late 1600's in Europe), and was clearly ascending up until radio, television, and movies came along. Politicians are not "of the people" anymore. They are meant to be (though they generally fail to be)idealized representatives of the people. Look at the cult of the celebrity that has grown (and exploded with the growth of television channels and, more recently, websites) in our society. My vote, no matter how depressing it may be, is that we're in an Age of Descending Heroes. I know that we still exist in the framework of the Age of Man, but I'm not so sure that Authority lies there anymore.
Where do you think we are?

*Divine doesn't necessarily mean that the society is more pious or "good". It merely means that the authority in society is either held in god-like status or gets its authority through Divine dispensation.

**Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that society is full of doers of good deeds. Instead, it means that the larger than life characters who become known throughout society are granted authority, explicit or implicit, in crafting laws or shaping social mores.

Post-Christian America

2009-04-07T13:15:00.000-07:00

In a nation where 76% of us describe ourselves as Christian, it might seem a little ridiculous to call us a "Post-Christian nation". Still, there's no doubt that we're becoming less religious as a nation and a culture. Jon Meacham, author of American Gospel, has a new piece in Newsweek in which he says this is a good thing. Specifically, Meacham says:

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world."

In that Newsweek article, R. Albert Mohler Jr. defines Post-Christianity as "spirituality, however defined, without binding authority". It's spiritual anarchy.

Since the Reformation, we've had a constant chorus of voices singing the praises of new sects (and in a few cases, religions). Typically though, those sects found common physical as well as spiritual ground. Look at the American colonies for example. Massachusetts was home to the Puritans. Pennsylvania was home to the Quakers. Most of the southern colonies were Anglican, at least until the Great Awakening in the mid-18th Century. Even Rhode Island, beacon of religious liberty to Meacham, had plenty of "blue laws" less than a century after its founding in 1636. Rhode Island is actually a perfect example of differing sects embracing the idea of "toleration", while continuing to try and seek common ground when possible.

Back then, you also had the influence of Deism on virtually all Christian denominations. Deism, despite what modern pundits would have you believe, is not akin to agnosticism or atheism. Deism still puts God at the top of the pyramid, scripture is still worth reading, but Truth can also be found outside of the Bible. Contrast that with the Me-ism that is gaining ground today, and Deism starts to look as fundamental as an Assemblies of God congregation.

We've given up on the Bible as a source of Truth, and we've also decided to ignore the vast collection of wisdom acquired through the centuries by secular scholars and philosophers. Instead, we tell ourselves that all is a matter of perspective, that there is no Truth to be found (or, if there is Truth to be found, we already possess that knowledge somewhere inside of us). The result is that too many of us are spiritually adrift, floating aimlessly through life without ever really seeking Truth.

Finally, by becoming Post-Christian, we are also in danger culturally of being Post-Western Civilization. Christianity, in all its incarnations, is woven throughout the intellectual fabric of our shared history. It did not influence Plato and Cicero, but philosophers like Grotius (the father of international law) were influenced by secular minds like Aristotle as well as religious minds like St. Augustine. You cannot separate Christianity from the rest of history, and when Christianity is seen to taint all it touches, we throw a lot of valuable knowledge away.

The American Resolves

2009-04-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

Piggybacking off of Will Collier's post about a Tea Party Manifesto... I just wanted to put down some thoughts I've been having lately. I won't pretend that these are ideas in finished form, but more of a germ of an idea.
By now, tens of thousands of Americans have taken part in a Tea Party Protest, but it doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference. I suppose if the numbers grow extraordinarily large we might still see more than a handful of politicians showing the slightest bit of interest, but in the meantime should we be content to wait for our numbers to grow loud enough for the legislators to hear? Why aren’t we putting our existing numbers to better use?

In December of 1773, the Boston Tea Party took place following a town meeting, roughly the equivalent to our city council meetings. The idea of using local governments to send a message to their more distant counterparts isn’t unheard of today, although in recent years it seems to be infrequent at best and usually anti-war in nature (yes Berkeley, I’m talking to you). Still, if 3,000 people can show up for a Tea Party rally in Greensburg, South Carolina, can 300 show up at Greensburg’s City Council Meeting? If 1500 people rally in St. Louis, can 150 of them sit in the council chambers for the same purpose? Have you watched a typical city council meeting lately? No one’s there, and those who are there are usually an odd mixture of the intense lone citizen, the interested businessman, perhaps a field trip or two, and those with specific business before the council. City councils usually don’t see large groups like the Tea Party Movement, and those large groups can have a big impact legislatively and in the media when they come together in the arena.

Simply showing up isn’t enough, of course. You have to say something as well. Considering the grassroots support for the ideals of the Tea Party, it isn’t hard to imagine hundreds, if not thousands, of towns (most of them admittedly small) across the country that could approve resolves that condemn the stimulus in practice and/or in theory. This idea, like the Tea Party Movement, has a loose basis in history.

In September of 1774 the leaders of government in Suffolk County, Massachusetts (where Boston was located) passed a series of resolves against Parliament. They were incendiary, far more than the resolves below, but the men who drafted them faced a far different situation than we do. By September of 1774 the bonds of union were already strained to the breaking point, and military action was seen by both sides as not just likely, but certain. There is simply no comparison to our current situation, and we should thank God that is the case.

The Suffolk Resolves also weren’t just directed at Parliament. They were directed towards the people of Massachusetts, and to those of other colonies as well. They demanded that the people in America stand up for themselves or be tainted as cowards and fools for generations to come: If a boundless extent of continent, swarming with millions, will tamely submit to live, move and have their being at the arbitrary will of a licentious minister, they basely yield to voluntary slavery, and future generations shall load their memories with incessant execrations. It wasn’t unusual for our forefathers to think of us. They were far more likely than we are to not just “think of the children”, but of their children’s children as well. We, on the other hand, seem pre-occupied with our present, and the future is left largely unconsidered. In the resolves below, I have included reference to our posterity, for the simple reason that our forefathers were right and we are wrong.

I've also largely kept the 18th Century prose intact, though I realize it would certainly have to be updated for our own 21st Century minds. For the purposes of thought and discussion, however, I wanted the language to remind is of our shared history. Our language is much more functional than pretty these days, but there is genuine beauty to be found in the language of the Suffolk Resolves. They are such eloquent defenses of liberty and emancipation (including the phrase "voluntary slavery" that hearkens back to La Boetie) that it seems a shame for them to be relegated to the scholars and academics instead of remaining the intellectual property and heritage of the American people.

THE AMERICAN RESOLVES

Whereas the power but not the justice, the benevolence but not the wisdom of our representatives, now pursues us, their guiltless children, with unrelenting severity: And whereas, this, then savage and uncultivated desert, was purchased by the toil and treasure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our venerable progenitors; to us they bequeathed the dearbought inheritance, to our care and protection they consigned it, and the most sacred obligations are upon us to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved offspring. On the fortitude, on the wisdom and on the exertions of this important day, is suspended the fate of this beacon of freedom, and of unborn millions. If a boundless extent of continent, swarming with millions, will tamely submit to live, move and have their being at the arbitrary will of licentious ministers, they basely yield to voluntary slavery, and future generations shall load their memories with incessant execrations.--On the other hand, if we arrest the hand which would ransack our pockets, if we disarm the parricide which points the dagger to our bosoms, if we nobly defeat that fatal edict which proclaims a power to frame laws for us in all cases whatsoever, thereby entailing the endless and numberless curses of slavery upon us, our heirs and their heirs forever; if we successfully resist that unparalleled usurpation of unconstitutional power, whereby our capital is robbed of the means of life; whereby the laws of our Constitution, that sacred barrier against the encroachments of tyranny, is mutilated and, in effect, annihilated; whereby laws are framed to shelter villains from the hands of justice; whereby the unalienable and inestimable inheritance, which we derived from nature, the constitution of the United States, and the privileges warranted to us in the constitution of our state, is in grave danger of total wreckage, annulment, and vacancy, posterity will acknowledge that virtue which preserved them free and happy; and while we enjoy the rewards and blessings of the faithful, the torrent of panegyrists will roll our reputations to that latest period, when the streams of time shall be absorbed in the abyss of eternity.--Therefore, we have resolved, and do resolve,

1. That whereas the President, Barack Obama, is the lawful president of the United States of America, and justly entitled to the allegiance of all Americans, therefore, we, the heirs and successors of the first founders of this country, do cheerfully acknowledge the said President to be our rightful executive, and that said covenant is the tenure and claim on which are founded our allegiance and support.

2. That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

3. That the late acts of the U.S. Congress, and of the executive branch, for signing off on more than one trillion dollars worth of debt that will the burden of those future generations of taxpayers who could not give their consent, for expanding the established role of government in this country, and for spending taxpayer dollars without having read the legislation that legitimized the expenditures, are gross infractions of those rights to which we and our posterity are justly entitled by the laws of nature and the U.S.constitution.

4. That, having gathered informally to express our opposition to these current practices, we, the residents of (name of town here) do hereby ask Congress and the executive branch to listen to the true voices of government, We the People, in our request.

5. That in an attempt to stop the damage already caused to the American ideals of emancipation and self-determination, Congress rejects any new legislation that would require vast infusions of taxpayer money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy.

6. Finally, that Congress immediately pass legislation that would require stimulus money rejected by recipients to be refunded to taxpayers, instead of continuing to be appropriated for spending by the government.

Smoking Cessation as Political Protest

2009-03-31T16:40:00.000-07:00

I bought my last pack of cigarettes today. That's a pretty bold statement for me to make. I've been buying cigarettes since the age of 12, peddling my Mongoose down to the 7-11 to buy a pack of Marlboros for my older and lazier brother. I didn't start smoking until I was 14, at the same time I started playing high school football. Football lasted two years, but the cigarettes have been with me ever since. Still, I feel supremely confident in making that statement, because I finally have a good enough reason to quit smoking: defying the expectations of my government.

See, my government expects me to keep on smoking, even after taxes on cigarettes increase by 62 cents to help pay for health insurance for "moderate-income" families. If I stop smoking, those kids don't get to see a doctor. In fact, if I don't keep smoking, I must be unpatriotic. Why would I want to hurt those children of parents with moderate income? It is my duty as a smoking-American to pay higher taxes and to keep smoking, in order to provide for a healthier tomorrow, or something along those lines.

Well screw that. The price I pay for health insurance through my employer just went up, and I can use the money I save on cigarettes to pay for my own family's doctor bills. I'm quitting smoking as a form of political protest, because I choose not to willingly give my money to a government program I do not support expanding. My government expects that I keep smoking, but I'm going to defy their expectations and protest higher taxes and progress towards universal health care at the same time. Yes, it'll be difficult, but every time I feel like buying a pack of cigarettes I'll just view my exercise of willpower as a silent "fuck you" to the Nanny State.

I've been looking for a way to express my disapproval at the current state of affairs. Well, defying the expectations of my government is still defying my government. Quitting smoking never felt so rebellious before.

Dumbest Sign Yet

2009-03-28T11:17:00.000-07:00

Dumbest sign I've seen at the Tea Parties?

No, he wouldn't. Who are we talking about "overthrowing"? The government? Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State in the Federalist administration of Washington, but didn't call for the overthrow of the government. He served as Vice-President under a Federalist president (John Adams) and didn't call for the overthrow of the government. Jefferson may have thought that, even in a society with free elections, things could get bad enough that the government should be changed, but that was always the action of last resort. Don't put the cart before the horse.

All of the Jefferson fans so inordinately fond of quoting his "Tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" line really should realize that it's only one man's opinion (and a minority one at that), not American Gospel.

Action, Not Ideas

2009-03-24T08:47:00.000-07:00

First off, I want to thank Alex Knapp for responding to the last post. Alex has a few quibbles, and I don't think he's entirely off base.

First, the fact that the Tea Parties aren't advocating action. Instapundit had a quote yesterday that Moe Lane has repeated:

“If people are in despair it is up to them to refuse indulge in the passivity that is the only way Obama succeeds in remaking this country, and take action. Turning passive into active is a time honored treatment for depression.”

But there has to be more than standing around holding up signs, right? That can't be the action that others are advocating, because holding a sign won't change the world, solve our economic crisis, restore the free markets, or convince the One that redistribution of pie is a bad thing.

Then again, maybe it doesn't have to do those things. Back in the days of the original Tea Parties, there wasn't really any focus on getting Parliament to repeal the Tea Act. Oh, the colonists may have been happy to see Parliament take that step, but that wasn't what the protests were about. The acts of defiance, from dumping tea into Boston Harbor to telling the captain of the Polly in Philadelphia that he would be tarred and feathered if he attempted to unload his cargo, were simply resistance to these policies. It didn't matter what Parliament did, because the people weren't going to listen to Parliament on this issue to begin with. The Tea Parties were a reaction to a policy, but they didn't advocate a policy position; they simply said they were not going to accept the new policy.*

Think of it this way: no matter how much Sam Adams may have wanted it to be so, the men who took part in the Boston Tea Party weren't shouting passages of The Rights of the Colonists as they cracked open the crates on the three ships in Boston Harbor.

Mobs aren't think tanks. Mobs are all action. We can't blame the mob for not having a better idea, because that's not the purpose of the mob. Maybe we can take Michael Patrick Leahy and J.P. Friere to task for not coming up with a policy that counters the stimulus/bailouts, but I don't think the responsibility is theirs alone. If blogging is the new pamphleteering, then every blogger has the potential to be this generation's Thomas Paine, John Adams, Joseph Warren, and so on. Coming up with ideas is our job... I'm just not sure how willing we are to offer those ideas when our own Army of Davids stands ready to tear us down with their slings and arrows.

*Interestingly enough, the Tea Act was repealed, but not until 1778. Yes, the British waited two years after we declared independence to repeal the hated tax on tea. Heckuva job, Freddie.

Everyone's A Critic

2009-03-23T12:58:00.000-07:00

A friend of mind forwarded me this post by Alex Knapp, in which he expresses "no small amount of amusement" over the Tea Party and Going Galt movements. The reasons are simple:

The “Tea Parties”, of course, started springing up in response to Obama’s stimulus package, a package whose largest fiscal component is a tax cut that will largely benefit the people in the income brackets who make up the Tea Party movement. That I find funny.

The folks in the blogosphere largely cheerleading the Tea Parties are the same folks in the blogosphere who cheerleaded the war in Iraq. So apparently, government intervention to the tune of $650 Billion is okay to spend when it comes to an unnecessary war that in no way advances American interests, but not okay when it comes to building bridges, cutting taxes, helping state governments meet budget shortfalls, or making sure that Americans don’t get covered in lava. Gotcha.

(Disclosure: At the time, I did support the Iraq invasion, which in hindsight was stupid. I am also skeptical about the stimulus package as passed. But I wasn’t opposed to a stimulus package per se.)

Some of the biggest proponents of the “Going Galt” bandwagon in the blogosphere and at Pajamas Media are Glenn Reynolds and his wife, both of whom have jobs (Professor of Law at a public university; forensic psychiatrist) that are dependent on public, taxpayer-funded institutions.

Finally and most ironic of all, none of the folks who attend “tea parties” or who will “go Galt” (one of these days, when they scrounge up the cash) have apparently noticed that we haven’t had anything approaching a free-market system for decades now, but apparently only now that the political party they don’t like is in power have they bothered to notice.

Let's take these one step at a time. First, the "fact" that the Tea Party protestors are arguably protesting against their own economic self-interest. Alex finds that funny. I, on the other hand, think it hearkens back to the original Tea Party. Alex may or may not recall from American History that the Tea Act passed by Parliament was actually going to mean cheaper tea for the colonists... just as long as they accepted the right of Parliament to tax them without the colonists having representation. The working class men and women who not only dumped the tea into the harbor, but organized non-importation movements around the colonies were most certainly working against their own economic self-interest. Doing that doesn't always mean you're a moron. Sometimes it means you simply have principles.

Secondly, the people opposed to the bailouts are largely the same people who supported the Iraq war. So what? The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. Do we discount everything Jefferson had to say when it comes to freedom and liberty? Besides, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and even if you think they were wrong about Iraq, does that mean they're automatically wrong now?

The notion that men and women who work in a field that is publicly funded can't support in principle private employers "going Galt" is simply absurd. Also, perhaps Alex has forgotten about Pajamas Media? Last time I checked both Glenn and Helen are a part of that private company.

Lastly, Alex finds it amusing that only now are people waking up to the fact that we haven't had a free market system in quite some time. Yes, heaven forbid people are actually allowed to reach that realization. Perhaps Alex will forgive me for asking, but is there a point in which it's simply too late for people to realize this?

People are slow to change. Even Thomas Paine, writing The Crisis realized this. He wrote:

Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own ; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet.

Paine would have preferred independence declared in December of 1775 instead of July of 1776. Even while acknowledging that fact, he still put on a brave face and tried to rally the people to the cause of liberty. Alex Knapp, on the other hand, just wants to get his snark on.

Let’s call the “tea party” and “going Galt” nonsense what it is: unprincipled partisan hackery. If these were truly principled protests, they’d have been around all through the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress years, too.

All well and good, except for the fact that Knapp misses the blindingly obvious point: there was no economic crisis that was met with this kind of response during the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress years. What we're seeing here is a response to a crisis, not the status quo.

It's awfully easy to criticize the Tea Party movement (I've done it myself). But if you're going to criticize people for seeing the light later than you, or for expressing their opposition in a partisan fashion, while you believe that in principle they are right, then you'd be better off offering constructive criticism instead of the all-too-easy sarcasm and snide remarks that pass for real debate these days. Then again, Knapp is the same author who apparently thinks most of civilization has been barking up the wrong tree, philosophically speaking. It may be that he's one of the many bloggers these days who seem incapable of writing in praise of another's ideas, and instead expends all his energy tearing things down (unless, of course, he's talking about Joss Whedon, who seems to be the William Shakespeare of the 21st Century libertarians).

It's easy to tear down, or to provide synchophantic praise. What's rare these days is the courage to offer up a new idea, because you know it's going to simply get ripped apart rather than seriously examined. It's a shame that someone like Knapp prefers intellectual laziness over serious thought and inquiry.

A Modest Proposal

2009-03-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

When does one of the bright bulbs in Congress decide that baseball players who have a) previously admitted steroid use or b) get busted using steroids will have every dollar they make over $250,000 a year taxed at 90%? After all, Congress has already said that the sport is the business of the federal government, so why shouldn't they punish these cheaters financially?

Filling the Vessel

2009-03-22T08:51:00.000-07:00

Checking my Gmail this morning, I saw that today's quote of the day was from Plutarch: The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.

Now there's a thought to stir the hearts of bloggers everywhere. Unfortunately, I'm more of a vessel-filler than a firestarter. With that in mind, did you know that even Plutarch, writing thousands of years ago, was warning others about getting too far in over our heads? Here's more Plutarch:

Plato in the Laws forbids people to take any water from a neighbour's land unless they have dug on their own land down to a layer of potter's clay, as it is called, and found that the place will not produce a flow of water; for the potter's clay, being by nature oily and solid, holds back the water that reaches it and does not let it through; but, he says, those shall have a share of others' water who cannot get any of their own, for the law gives relief to those in want. Ought there not, then, to be a law about money also, that people shall not borrow from others for resort to other people's springs who have not first examined their resources at home and brought together, as from little trickles, what is useful and necessary to themselves? But now, because of their luxury and effeminacy or their extravagance, they make no use of what is their own, though they possess it, but take from others at a high rate of interest, though they have no need of doing so. There is strong evidence of this: loans are not made to people in need, but to those who wish to acquire some superfluity for themselves.

Even in Plutarch's day there were too many people living a Lexus lifestyle on a Kia income. It's probable that many of our own Founders were aware of Plutarch's comments on loaning (and accepting) money; after all, he was one of the most popular authors for the Founding generation. Benjamin Franklin grew up in a house with two books: the Bible and Plutarch's Lives. Plutarch echoes in Franklin's The Way to Wealth, in statements like, "These are not the necessaries of life; they can scarcely be called the conveniences; and yet, only because they look pretty, how many want to have them! By these, and other extravagances, the genteel are reduced to poverty, and forced to borrow of those whom they formerly despised, but who, through industry and frugality, have maintained their standing."

It's not just that we've strayed from the American way of frugality and self-reliance. Many of us (and culturally speaking, society at large) choose to ignore wisdom that is thousands of years old. Sure, we can send a man to the moon and send information around the world in an instant, but we can't convince people that it's a bad idea to live beyond our means? In fact, the more we build incredible and amazing consumer products that many of us can't really afford, the worse off we get.

For the most technologically advanced civilization the world has ever known, we really are a bunch of idiots.

A Question

2009-03-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

I haven't gone away, just have been doing more thinking than writing over the past week. That's not actually a bad thing... I never intended for this blog to be constantly updated, but I found myself getting into that habit.

Something I've been pondering: in the American Revolution, there were a lot of ancillary issues that weren't settled at the time, the most notable being the issue of slavery. Abolition wasn't an unheard of philosophy at the time, but it was still a fringe issue. The same could be said for women's rights at the time. It was a side issue that never managed to get tied in to the larger issue of independence (no matter how hypocritical that might be). The central issue that brought so many disparate people together was, eventually anyway, independence.

Conversely, I wonder what our central issue is today, and what other related issues are going to prove to be side issues without enough traction or support to gain mainstream acceptance. Any thoughts?

Facts Are Stubborn Things

2009-03-12T20:25:00.000-07:00

There's some hand-wringing (or worse) among conservatives now that Tony West has been named to head the Civil Divison of the Justice Department.

It's true that West defended American Taliban John Walker Lindh. As columnist James Lileks puts it:

Tony Ward is the President’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Civil Division. If you want to know how far we are past 9/11, there’s your answer: John Walker Lindh’s defense attorney is going to work for Justice. I’m not saying he wouldn’t do a perfectly competent job.

It just seems like one of those things that might have stuck out, once upon a time.

It's fine that it sticks out, but it's not a reason to automatically tar and feather the guy. It may be a sign of character. Don't forget, John Adams was one of the defense attorneys for the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, yet he wasn't seen as a bad guy. He was a principled man. Now, maybe Mr. West is not a man of principle, but you can't make that case based solely on who he chose as a client.

An Open Letter to A Disillusioned Obama Voter

2009-03-10T15:49:00.001-07:00

Dear L-----,

Thanks for our conversation the other night. I know it took a lot for you to admit that you're disillusioned with Obama, and I know that your disillusionment doesn't mean you've automatically become a Coulter-reading, Savage-listening, NewsMax-subscribing conservative. Still, you sat in a traffic jam for 4 1/2 hours to hear Obama speak. You still have the bumper sticker on the back of your car. You wanted to see Obama win, and you were thrilled that he was elected. I know how hard it is, just a few weeks into his term, to watch this man make decisions that, in your words, defy common sense. I hate to say it, but you should be proud of yourself. Do you know how long I kept defending Republicans who didn't deserve it just because I thought they were just a little bit better than the other guy? It's a funny thing... when you quit requiring principle in your politicians, you stop getting it. That seems to be one of the few things bi-partisan in Washington.

It's sad to say, but not having faith in your government is also a pretty bi-partisan thing right now. The silver lining of that is that you're not alone. There are lots of disillusioned people in this country, of every political stripe. That's why I really do want you to go to one of the Tea Party Protests with me. See, I don't want it to be just a Republican thing, or a conservative thing. You and I both know that what really bothers us is the fact that, beneath our partisan differences, there are ideals that aren't left or right, but simply American. One of them is, "you can't spend yourself out of debt." You know it, I know it, the people know it, but apparently our politicians don't seem to get it yet.

Yes, it was horrible when Republicans let spending bloat under "compassionate conservativism". It's equally as horrible when Democrats do it under "economic stimulus measures". It's not going to work, and we know that. I heard you loud and clear when you told me the other night that this is just common sense, but that no one wants to listen. That's why you should go to the Tea Party event. You've called your Senators and emailed your Congressman. You've let them know how you feel, but (if you're like me anyway) that doesn't feel like it's enough. This isn't your usual legislation or issue. This is nation-changing, and it's not the change you were hoping for.

I know how hard you and T--------- have worked to bring yourself out of debt, and I know how angry it makes you to now finally be at a comfortable level only to be told that you've somehow made it "too far". It's ridiculous that we're going to tax the productive class in order to continue subsidizing those who financed their illusion of wealth on easy credit terms. Even worse, we get to give our money to the greedy moneylenders who knew damn well that they were eventually going to come crashing down on our heads. You have every right to be angry, no matter who you voted for. You did everything right, and you're going to be the one who pays. When did responsibility turn into a liability?

We need your voice out there, L------. It doesn't mean you've joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It doesn't mean you're going to declare Independence. It doesn't mean you want this nation to fail, or that you want Rush Limbaugh to run for president in 2012. You embracing this simply helps to ensure that this remains an American cause, and undefinable much beyond that most basic of labels. I want you to be a part of this because you and I are so different, yet on this one issue we find ourselves on standing on common ground. It's not our friendship that binds us, or the fact that we're neighbors. It's much deeper than that, stretching down to the bedrock principles that have guided us so well over the centuries. Those are the principles for which you need to stand and be counted, and I hope when the time comes you'll be standing beside

Your most humble servant,

Clarendon

The Death of Evangelical Christianity?

2009-03-10T10:28:00.000-07:00

A fairly interesting article by Michael Spencer on the coming "evangelical collapse". This, of course, comes a day after news that there are far fewer Christians in this country than there were 20 years ago.

I confess, I go to church so rarely that I half-expect to burst into flames every time I do enter the sanctuary. Still, the fact that there are fewer Christians around doesn't make me happy. This nation was settled and established by and for people of a strong public and private virtue, and whether or not you agree that it has to be faith-based, there's not much arguing over the fact that our public virtue has been difficult to find.

The sad thing is that many Americans, on both sides, are unable to have an actual conversation about virtue. Liberals will claim your out to establish an American Taliban, while conservatives will complain about the government enacting any social policy that goes against their moral and ethical beliefs.

Are there any founders out there that have some worthy advice for us? I've identified a few, and I'm working on a piece that should be up later this week. Let me know if you have any suggestions!

Not the 300 I Was Hoping For

2009-03-06T13:26:00.001-08:00

Biggest "Tea Party" protest to date? About 2,000 in Greenville, South Carolina. That was a great turnout for a burgeoning movement.

But there's a counter-movement as well... the Keep America Entitled crowd is also demonstrating, and 50,000 of them turned out in New York today. The estimated number of New Yorkers at the Big Apple's Tea Party protest? 300.

To borrow a line from Smokey and the Bandit... we've got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Massacre Day

2009-03-04T22:10:00.000-08:00

Today is the 239th anniversary of the Boston Massacre. This horrible tragedy, in which British soldiers killed five men and wounded six others, brought hostilities in Boston from a slow burn to an open flame. That fire would burn steady for the next five years, until it erupted in a blaze that spread throughout Massachusetts and across the colonies. The fires of an actual fight for freedom and not just an appeal to the Government for liberty were first stoked by the Massacre.

In many ways, the Massacre allowed the colonists to maintain the moral high ground, despite the fact that only two of the soldiers were convicted, and their punishment was extremely light. In the eyes of the public, the British had drawn first blood, and now the colonists were acting in self-defense against their agressor. It's an argument that Thomas Paine used in Common Sense, the tract that would turn the fire of freedom into the white hot blaze of support for independence in the early days of 1776. In the larger political and philosophical battle, the patriots also didn't see themselves as the agressor, but insyead saw themselves asserting their rights as Englishmen. The Crown and most members of Parliament simply saw it differently. They viewed the colonies as asserting a right that simply didn't exist. After all, the colonies had been under British control for 150 years at that point, and this idea of representation had never come up before, despite the fact that the colonists had been paying taxes all along. They didn't get what was so different about a direct tax for purposes of revenue as opposed to the regulation of trade. A tax is a tax is a tax.

That was the British argument; the taxes were not encroachments on a right, but were instead just a new policy based on an existing principle. The British thought they were simply doing what had to be done to maintain the policies that made the Empire strong.

The Americans, ultimately, decided that their rights as individuals were more important than their place in the British Empire. They started us on the long road to the equal opportunity to exercise our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They made it possible for us to create a more perfect union, which also gave us the opportunity to fail at that task.

The patriots of Boston never doubted the success of their cause. In 1774, John Hancock gave the address at the gathering to commemorate the anniversary of the Massacre. He closed his speech this way:

I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America. And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity. And having secured the approbation of our hearts, by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."

He wasn't the only one. In 1775, just weeks before he was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill, Dr. Joseph Warren said in his Massacre Day address, The man who meanly will submit to wear a shackle, contemns the noblest gift of heaven, and impiously affronts the God that made him free.

These were people who knew they had God on their side, and that regardless of whether they won or lost, they had a moral right to fight. At that point they weren't seeking independence, just equal rights under the law. They weren't afraid to speak their mind, and in fact continued to make their case, both legally and philosophically. They were careful not to be the aggressor, though things got a little out of hand when patriots took a couple of undermanned British forts by force, though without violence. In the eyes of the patriot population (anywhere from a third to nearly half the population, and much higher in Massachusetts than in other colonies), it was important that the British were unquestionably the more aggressive of the two sides. The colonists, after all, just wanted to be left alone, or if taxed, a seat at the table. They weren't predators, but rattlesnakes ready to defend their territory.

The Gadsden Flag is one of the more memorable flags of the patriot cause, and it featured that rattlesnake. I couldn't help but think of that flag when I heard about the Hoboken Tax Protest held last night. Here's a slightly updated version.

It'd make a great poster for any Tea Party protests this weekend. You can pay tribute to your forefathers and your fellow angry Americans! There's also a smaller version to display on your blog.

Benjamin Franklin was the first patriot to use the rattlesnake as a symbol. His reasoning was this:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

Well... was he?

Liberal is the New Tory

2009-03-04T16:02:00.000-08:00

Obama and his ilk aren't really providing hope and change. In fact, they're just providing a lot more of the same old, same old (enough same old, same old to bankrupt us as a matter of fact). All of the bloated social programs will be inflating further. The economic handcuffs on small businesses and innovators will get tighter. Sure, there'll be new policies, but all of them are based on the idea that the American people need to keep sucking at the government teat, instead of the ideal that we can and should be responsible for ourselves.

The real revolutionaries these days are the conservatives. We're the ones who want something we don't have. We are the rebels of responsibility. We believe in a federal government that doesn't try to be all things to all people. We believe there are still matters of conscience and spheres of influence where the government need not interfere. Yes, we want a government that listens to us, but we also want something of ourselves. We want to be a country where are worthy of exercising independence. We believe that actions have consequences, that bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded, and that frugality is a better alternative to living beyond your means. We don't want to see people on the street, but we don't want to subsidize someone living in a nicer house than we own or rent. Like it or not, these are pretty revolutionary ideas these days. So, if conservatives are the new revolutionaries, that can only mean one thing. Liberal is the new Tory. crossposted from The New Pamphleteers.

Rediscovering the Revolution: The Philadelphia Tea Protest

2009-03-04T13:57:00.000-08:00

Author's note: This is the first in a series of posts highlighting some of the forgotten stories of the American Revolution.

Everyone knows the story of the Boston Tea Party; how 50 (or as many as 200) men disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and cracked open the crates of tea on board three ships in Boston Harbor. They dumped the tea into the waters as a sign of protest against taxation without representation, and Parliament responded by sending massive numbers of troops to quell the growing rebellion in the city.

What many people don’t realize is that Boston wasn’t the only town to protest the Tea Act. In fact, every major port city in the colonies had their own unique protests, most of which have long been forgotten. At the time, however, Boston’s Tea Party was just one of the many responses to the hated legislation.

We celebrate Boston’s Tea Party, but what if it was Philadelphia’s response that we remembered instead? In November of 1773, a little less than a month before the Boston Tea Party took place, a broadside appeared all over Philadelphia, warning the captain of the tea-bearing ship “Polly” not to attempt to dock and unload his cargo. While the language of the late 18th century can be verbose and hard to read for some people, this broadside, authored by the “Committee for Tarring and Feathering”, is crystal clear, even to denizens of the 21st century.

To Capt. Ayres, of the ship ‘Polly’, on a voyage from London to Philadelphia,

Sir,

We are informed that you have, imprudently, taken charge of a quantity of tea, which has been sent out by the India Company under the auspices of the Ministry, as a trial of American virtue and resolution.

Now, as your cargo, on your arrival here, will most assuredly bring you into hot water, and as you are perhaps a stranger to these parts, we have concluded to advise you of the present situation of affairs in Philadelphia--- that, taking Time by the forelock, you may stop short in your dangerous errand--- secure your ship against the rafts of combustible material which may be set on fire and turned loose against her, and more than all this, that you may preserve your own person from the pitch and feathers that are prepared for you.

In the first place, we must tell you that the Pennsylvanians are, to a man, passionately fond of Freedom, the birthright of Americans, and at all events are determined to enjoy it.

That they fiercely believe no power on the face of the Earth has a right to tax them without their consent.

That in their opinion, the tea in your custody is designed by the Ministry to enforce such a tax, which they will undoubtedly oppose, and in so doing, give you every possible obstruction.

We are nominated to a very disagreeable, but necessary service--- To our care are committed all offenders against the rights of America, and hapless is he, whose evil destiny has doomed him to suffer at our hands.

You are sent out on a diabolical service, and if you are so foolish and obstinate as to complete your voyage, by bringing your ship to anchor in this port, you may run such a gauntlet as will induce you, in your last moments, most heartily to curse those who have made you a dupe of their avarice and ambition.

What think you, Captain, of a halter around your neck--- ten gallons of liquid tar decanted on your pate--- with the feathers of a dozen wild geese laid over that to enliven your appearance?

Only think seriously of this--- and fly to the place from whence you came--- fly without hesitation--- without the formality of a protest--- and above all, Captain Ayres, let us advise you to fly without wild geese feathers.

Your friends to serve,

The Committee of Tarring and Feathering

Not surprisingly, Captain Ayres unloaded his tea. He never felt the cold wind on his naked body as his clothes were ripped away by an angry crowd. He never felt the scalding tar pour over his tender skin, nor did he endure the humiliation of then being covered in feathers until he was unrecognizable. He never sat through the hours of scrubbing with harsh soap to remove the sticky tar. He never had to see his flesh peel away with the tar and feathers, never had to fight off the infection that often set in afterwards. He never had to do these things because he had the sense to see the citizens of Philadelphia meant business.

Ayres sailed as far as Chester, Pennsylvania, where he was met by a few of Philadelphia’s city leaders. He agreed to go with them to a meeting at Philadelphia’s State House (now Independence Hall). There, on December 27th, he likely watched in amazement, or perhaps fear, as a crowd estimated at 8,000 (in a city of about 20,000 people) gathered to pass a series of resolves regarding him, his cargo, and his ship.

1- Resolved, that the tea on board the ship Polly, Captain Ayres should not be landed.
2- That Captain Ayres shall neither enter nor report his vessel at the Customs-House.
3- That Captain Ayres shall carry the tea back immediately.
4- That Captain Ayres shall immediately send a pilot on board his vessel, with orders to take charge of her and proceed to Reedy Island next high water.
5- That the captain shall be allowed to stay in town till tomorrow to provide necessaries for his voyage.
6- That he shall then be obliged to leave town and proceed to his vessel, and make the best of his way out of our river and bay.
7- That a committee of four gentlemen be appointed to see these resolves into action.

According to 19th century Philadelphia historian Thompson Wescott, in just two hours the Polly had been re-provisioned, turned around, and was sailing back to England. Not a single ounce of the 697 crates of tea made it on shore in Philadelphia.

Can you imagine 40% of the city of Philadelphia showing up at City Hall this weekend and telling the mayor and governor that if they take a dime of stimulus money there are gallons of hot tar and the feathers of a dozen wild geese waiting for them? Every legislator who voted in favor of that stimulus bill, every governor and mayor who’s lining up to accept that money, and every multi-millionaire accepting bailout money while continuing to pay for high-priced getaways and expensive renovations of corporate buildings on the taxpayer dime should drop to their knees tonight and thank God above that it’s the Boston Tea Party we remember, and not the Philadelphia Tea Protest.

Three Things That Could Kill The Tea Party Movement

2009-03-03T11:18:00.000-08:00

What are the biggest dangers facing the Tea Party movement, now that the first round of protests is over? I’ve identified three areas that concern me greatly, and if these three things come to pass, I’m afraid we won’t have much of a chance at success.

1- The Tea Party movement becomes synonymous with Republicans.

This really isn’t a Republican thing, or even a conservative thing. This is a movement for those who are Americans before they are a member of a political party or followers of a political ideology. The Founding generation managed to coalesce a wide-ranging group of Americans… from Calvinist merchants in the north to Deist planters in the south and every kind of patriot in between. Wealth wasn’t a requirement to be a leader in the movement. Artisans and mechanics (the Joe Six Packs of their day) not only took part in the patriot cause, they helped lead it. Among the delegates Massachusetts sent to the First Continental Congress were the chronically poor Sam Adams and the relatively wealthy Thomas Cushing. Radicals like Adams and Thomas Paine had just as much influence in their own way as did conservatives like George Washington and John Dickinson.

The bigger the tent the better. We need to point out that we’re not just opposed to the stimulus bill, but many of us are opposed to corporate welfare and bailouts to big business as well. This isn’t about protecting Republicans or winning elections. This is about saving the nation. There’s room for every American, of every political persuasion, as long as they’re concerned about the fate of our republic. The one thing that supporters of the Tea Party movement have in common is our love of country. We’re the patriots, not political partisans.

2- The movement relies too heavily on the Internet

The Internet needs to be the starting point for organizing, but it can’t be where we put the most emphasis. If we can use Facebook and Twitter to get 1000 people to a protest, we should be able to use those sites to get those 1000 people to 10 meetings once a week. Get a room at your local library, meet at a bar or restaurant. Have a house party. Meet wherever, but meet. Get to know your allies face to face. There is no substitute for the genuine camaraderie that develops only from personal contact with one another.

In the days of the original Boston Tea Party, the Liberty Tree (or in some towns, the Liberty Pole) was often covered in political broadsides and slogans, but it never replaced the face to face contacts at taverns like the Green Dragon or the Bunch of Grapes in Boston, Montanye’s Tavern in New York, Durkee’s Tavern in Norwich, Connecticut, and dozens of other meeting places around the colonies. Today, the Internet is our Liberty Pole, not our meeting house. It’s a great place for thoughts to be laid out, but (as any quick glance at a comment section will prove), it’s a horrible place for an actual discussion.

3- The movement becomes too organized from the top down.

Our political class isn’t suffering from a lack of glory hounds these days, and some of them are already trying to artificially proclaim themselves as leaders of the Tea Party Movement.

Yes, I know I’ve said that a unified message needs to be developed, but that doesn’t happen because a political consultant or a big name blogger decides they're going to be in charge. It happens when those meetings of 100 people discuss, debate, and reach accord on what it is that they’re protesting, as well as what they’re advocating. Joseph Warren may have written the first draft of the Suffolk Resolves, but students of history will note that his name appears nowhere in the Resolves themselves. Let our opponents have their cult of personality. We’re defending principle, not creating a new political celebrity.

If you want a local leader, elect one! Maybe your group will decide to elect several people to take the lead. Maybe you’ll divvy up the responsibilities by forming committees to handle various tasks. The point is, this is your movement. You own it, each and every one of you. Please, don’t delegate or abdicate responsibility when what we need is more personal responsibility.

This could be the start of something big and new, or it could turn into the same pre-packaged “grassroots” campaign that’s become so common over the past few years. I hope and pray that it will be the former, because the latter possibility is too depressing to seriously consider.

Voluntary Servitude

2009-02-27T06:25:00.001-08:00

My piece on Voluntary Servitude is up at Pajamas Media.

Are We Protesting Ourselves?

2009-02-25T10:59:00.000-08:00

How much of the Tea Party protests are directed towards our government for their bloated and dangerous "stimulus" bill, and how much are directed towards our fellow Americans; you know, the ones who decided to live a Lexus lifestyle on a Kia salary?

The New Face of Protesting

2009-02-24T14:18:00.000-08:00

This is just sad.

At the same time, even these pathetic excuses for Americans have their own list of (idiotic) demands, which is more than the Tea Party movement can say.

I don't mean to be too critical of the movement, because it is encouraging. It's also going to be a wasted opportunity if it doesn't start to coalesce around some remedies soon.

Liberty Defined

2009-02-23T16:38:00.000-08:00

In the last post of any substance, Junyo commented:

"What form does "liberty" take? Are we expecting to come out of some protests with an end to the Drug War, the full attainment of the right to keep and bear arms, decriminalization of whatever acts of commerce two adults consensually agree to (my personal definition)? Or are we defining liberty as how things were 100 days ago? Total replacement of the government? Recouping unspent "stimulus" funds, getting the government out of the real estate business, and providing real stimulus via tax relief for the responsible taxpayers/home owners/businesspeople? "If you're looking for the answer then you've gotta ask the question..." "Liberty" is a lofty goal, but for effective action, some vague agreement about what the deliverables and criteria are is a practical necessity."

This is what happens when we lose respect for the power of words. They become gibberish and malleable, able to mean whatever we want. Liberty has a meaning, and a very precise one at that.

The opposite of liberty is slavery. What ultimately defines slavery? It is not the lash of the whip or cruel torture. Slavery has existed in societies where the human chattel were treated very well. It didn't matter; they were still slaves. Slavery is the presence of a Master or Masters. Liberty, therefore, is the absence of a Master.

I know, I know. It's not like the spending bill is the first time that the Federal government has exerted power of us. We know the Federal government is in charge. That argument was decided back in 1787. And it's not like we can be without some form of government holding the position of ultimate authority. The men who created this nation knew that too. Here's Thomas Jefferson (with the authority of the full Continental Congress) on the reason why we have government:

We hold these truths to be self evident; That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

Government exists to secure our rights. If we could secure them as individuals, we wouldn't have a need for government. But since we can't, we give the authority to the Federal government. We have our shackles, but they're pretty loose, or at least they were.

What we're protesting is the fact that that the shackles just got a lot tighter, and if we continue on our present course, they will become tighter still. We want our liberty back.

Of course, the corollary to wanting our liberty back is the fact that in order to get it, we're going to have to become a more virtuous society, but that's probably another post entirely.

Another Musical Interlude

2009-02-23T10:27:00.000-08:00

I'm working on a couple of longer pieces, but in the meantime, here's another Tea Party Theme Song candidate.

No Quest, But Close

2009-02-22T18:06:00.001-08:00

First of all, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Professor Glenn Reynolds for the recent link from Instapundit. I am honored and grateful that he found my contributions to the Great Discussion worthy of noting.

Secondly, thank you for taking your time to read what I'm writing. If you like what you're reading, I hope you'll take the time to actually forward a link on to your family and friends. I'm working on a theory that email forwards, not blogs themselves, are actually the new form of pamphleteering.

Finally, I think we're getting closer to figuring out what these protests are all about. At Instapundit, Professor Reynolds links to a post that says the Chicago Tea Party is a quest for our nation's soul.

I'd say that's close, but lacking a cigar. Does this feel like a quest to you? Like we're going to strap on our armor and go slay a dragon? It doesn't feel like that to me. To me it feels like any minute I could get sucker punched in the stomach, kicked in the head, and brought to my knees. This isn't a quest, this is a fight.

And what are we fighting for? The stimulus is signed. The governors, most of them anyway, are going to take the money. Yet still we gather, and the movement is gathering steam. We know what we're protesting against, but it almost feels like we can't quite agree on what we're advocating. It's on the tip of our tongue, but we're unable to recall it. It's a word we use a lot, but we rarely truly think about.

The word we're looking for is "liberty."

Act Worthy Of Yourselves

2009-02-21T08:23:00.000-08:00

Across the country, the "Tea Party" movement is spreading. Anti-stimulus protests in Arizona, Washington State, Kansas, Georgia, and elsewhere are popping up, and of course CNBC's Rick Santelli has become an instant folk hero after calling for a Chicago Tea Party. But if we're going to compare our actions to those brave Bostonians of 1773, we should really take a look at what their protest meant, and what happened afterwards. To simply compare ourselves to those men and women, without truly understanding what they did, at the least cheapens our shared history and could lead to consusion over the motives of this new "Tea Party" movement.

The decision to dump 45 tons of tea into Boston Harbor wasn't made at the spur of the moment. It had been carefully discussed and planned by the leaders of Boston's patriot community. They knew exactly what they were doing when they boarded those three ships and began breaking open the heavy chests filled with tea from the East India Trading Company. They were committing an act of insurrection, not political theater.

Let's back up for a second. In colonial America, there were a lot of tea drinkers, but many of them bought smuggled tea. The reason was simple: it was cheaper. There was already an import duty on British tea which made it more expensive than the Dutch tea many merchants (including John Hancock) smuggled in to the colonies. In April of 1773 Parliament tried to rectify this by passing the Tea Act. The legislation granted a monopoly of the North American market to the East India Trading Company in order to try and keep the company from economic collapse. At the same time, Parliament imposed a new tax on tea, but one that would be paid in London as a surcharge. The Americans would actually see lower prices on tea, but the tea they purchased would already come pre-taxed. Historian Benson Bobrick says it "remains a noble feature of the whole confrontation that immediate economic interest did not determine [the colonists'] response."

And Americans didn't take the bribe of lower tea in exchange for accepting a revenue tax. In Philadelphia, ships bearing tea couldn't find anyone willing to lead the ships into harbor. In Charleston, South Carolina, the tea was off-loaded, but was stored in moldy warehouses where the product quickly rotted and became useless. In New York City, storms prevented the tea-laden ships from docking.

Boston, already filled with thousands of Regular troops sent to suppress the insurrection, would be a different story. Three ships eventually landed at Griffin's Wharf in Boston Harbor, but armed townspeople stood guard over the vessels to prevent the tea from being unloaded. Patriot leaders pleaded with the captains of the ships to sail away, but they refused to do so until their cargo was removed. Only when word was received that the tea was to be off-loaded and imported the very next morning did the patriots act.

The beginning of the Boston Tea Party took place at Fanueil Hall. The large meeting house was packed to the brim on the night of December 16th. When he was informed that the governor had rejected pleas for help from the colonists, Samuel Adams, a staunch supporter of the Patriot cause (and something of a rabble-rouser) cried out, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country!"

That was the signal that triggered the Boston Tea Party. Two hundred men disguised themselves as best they could (it's interesting to point out that at the time, no one dared publicly admit they had taken part in the Tea Party) and set out to dump the tea, while thousands of residents watched from the streets.

It took them three hours. They did not burn down the ships, or vandalize them. They didn't steal any tea. They only destroyed it, and then marched off the boats and down the street with a fifer leading the way.

I mentioned earlier that His Majesty's troops were already in Boston that night. They did nothing to stop the Tea Party. Warships anchored less than a mile away did not fire upon the crowd, nor did they send a detachment of soldiers to try to break up the silent riot. Instead, the Crown's men exercised a great deal of restraint (no doubt thinking back to that March night just a few years earlier when troops opened fire on a crowd of belligerent Bostonians, killing five of them in what became known as the Boston Massacre). Still, Admiral John Montague couldn't help but open a window as the patriots passed by on the street below. "Boys, you have had a fine, pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you? But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet."

They paid, all right. The reaction from Parliament and the Crown was swift and severe. Parliament quickly passed the Coercive Acts, better known in the colonies as the Intolerable Acts. The response to the insurrectionist Tea Party was to try to break the will of the colonists. They shut down the port of Boston, revoked the charter of Massachusetts, removed any civilian governing authority and replaced it with Royal rule, and re-established the practice of quartering troops in civilian homes. Additionally, more than 5,000 more troops arrived to crack down on the rebellious Bostonians. Boston at the time was a city between 15,000 and 20,000, which meant that there was nearly one Regular for every adult male in the city. General Gage, the new military governor of Massachusetts, soon set out to confiscate gunpowder and arms stored in towns throughout the colony. Long before Lexington and Concord, Regular troops marched on the towns of Somerville (where they successfully removed the powder) and Salem (where they were forced to turn back by a crowd of civilians). Patriots responded by seizing the armed garrison at Portsmouth, Maine (then a part of Massachusetts) without firing a shot.

In short, the Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance and insurrection that set in motion a chain of events that led to armed rebellion against Parliament and the King. I wonder, do we really mean to compare ourselves to the men and women who, even at that early date, were ready to sacrifice their all for the cause of liberty?

It seems that what we're actually seeing now is a relatively low-key and sedate protest in relation to the audacious and incredible increase in government power. Frankly, the patriots who took part in the Boston Tea Party would probably call us cowards for not responding in a more full-throated manner.

I'm not objecting to the protests. Far from it in fact. I'll be at the protest in Washington, D.C. But I am not expecting anything other than street theater, or the political equivalent of clearing our throat rather than the yelling our politicians deserve to hear. I won't compare it to the Boston Tea Party, because there is no comparison. To claim otherwise is to both cheapen the actual protest by 200 Bostonians and their thousands of supporters, and to inflate the magnitude of our current actions.

I wonder, what are we expecting to achieve from these protests? Are we content to merely register our disapproval, or are we seeking to change what Congress and our president have done? If it is the former, I'm sure the politicians will note our objection, and wait for us to quiet down. If it is the latter, I fear our current protests are too scatter-shot to do any real good.

What is the target of our protest? Are we protesting the President and Congress for an act already passed, or are we petitioning our state and local governments to refuse to accept the stimulus money?

What do we do if these protests do not result in the change in policies we are asking for? What happens next?

Make no mistake, once a movement like this has begun, it will, sooner or later, have to answer these difficult questions or risk failure. Now is the seed-time of liberty, and the steps we take and the words we use will either be recalled triumphantly by our grandchildren, or seen as a sad charade conducted by children who could not muster the strength and conviction of their ancestors.

In 1775, just a few weeks before blood was spilled at Lexington Green, Dr. Joseph Warren addressed a crowd of Bostonians who had gathered to commemorate the anniversary of the Boston Massacre.

Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves. The faltering tongue of hoary age calls on you to support your country. The lisping infant raises its suppliant hands, imploring defence against the monster slavery. Your fathers look from their celestial seats with smiling approbation on their sons, who boldly stand forth in the cause of virtue; but sternly frown upon the inhuman miscreant, who, to secure the loaves and fishes to himself, would breed a serpent to destroy his children.

With all due respect to Dr. Warren, this is not your father's protest movement. This is your forefathers' protest. Act worthy of yourself.

Every Good Protest Deserves A Song

2009-02-20T09:19:00.000-08:00

Back in 1768, John Dickinson penned the words to "The Liberty Song" as a protest of the Townshend Acts passed by Parliament. By our standards, the Acts weren't much, as long as you could ignore the whole "taxation without representation" problem. Luckily for us, our forefathers couldn't ignore that small detail.

In 1768, two years before the Boston Massacre, five years before the Boston Tea Party, seven years before Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, and eight years before the Declaration of Independence, "The Liberty Song" was one of the most popular songs in the land. Dickinson didn't have to write music for the tune. He simply borrowed the music to the British naval song "Heart of Oak" and gave it a patriotic makeover with new words. The song went, in part:

Come join hand in hand brave Americans all,
And rouse your bold hearts at fair Liberty's call;
No tyrannous acts shall suppress your just claim,
Or stain with dishonour America's name.

CHORUS
In Freedom we're born and in Freedom we'll live,
Our purses are ready,
Steady, Friends, Steady.
Not as slaves, but as Freemen our money we'll give.

Swarms of placemen and pensioners soon will appear
Like locusts deforming the charms of the year;
Suns vainly will rise, Showers vainly descend,
If we are to drudge for what others shall spend.

CHORUS

Then join hand in hand brave Americans all,
By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall;
In so Righteous a cause let us hope to succeed,
For Heaven approves of each generous deed.

As applicable as those words may still be in 2009, I just don't see many Americans rallying around a sea chanty. I think the Save Our Nation movement needs a new protest song.

In the spirit of the vanguard of protestors in Seattle and Mesa, Arizona, and in the spirit of Rick Santelli's proposed Chicago Tea Party, I offer The Offspring's "Defy You" as the message the sons and daughters of Liberty need to send to those who would bankrupt our children in order to score cheap political points.

You want to send a message of opposition? Let's make this eight-year old song the most downloaded song on iTunes. An act of protest that costs less than a dollar, but would perhaps help our opponents realize just how many Americans are opposed to the destruction of the ideals of our Republic.

An American Plea

2009-02-20T09:17:00.000-08:00

I Is this what it felt like to live in the colonies of America in the summer of 1765? Back then, Parliament had just passed the Stamp Act, which taxed the colonists for the first time. The government was adopting bold new powers that would affect every American, and America responded.

Patrick Henry was 29 years old in 1765. A freshman legislator in Virginia, he took to the floor of the House of Burgesses just nine days into his term and denounced the Stamp Act with such passion and fervor that the Speaker, John Robinson, pounded his gavel and cried “Treason”! Robinson was joined by other members of the House in accusing Henry of the vile crime of treason, but Henry’s resolves against taxation actually passed the House.

That story leads me to believe that we aren’t re-living history. When Congress passed the recent spending bill, the rhetoric on both sides was heated, to be sure. Still, neither side called the other treasonous. The Democrats who supported the bill were called misguided, the bill itself was called a measure that would bankrupt our children, but the legislators, we were told, were simply trying their best. On the Republican side, they were accused of obstinacy and partisanship, but their opposition wasn’t deemed treasonous.

Our current state is more perilous than that of the colonies in 1765, yet we seem too frightened to face the possibility that we are now called, as our forefathers were, to defend freedom with every bit of air in our lungs, every muscle and tendon of our body, and every measure of our honor. It is a terrifying proposition: the government of, for, and by the People isn’t listening to us, nor are they listening to the wise counsel of those who came before them. It is a duly elected government, but is it really “of the People” anymore?

Let’s be honest with ourselves and with each other. The path we are forging is completely contrary to the ideals and principles of this great nation. The hero of the earlier anecdote, Patrick Henry, once said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Yet Congress just approved nearly 800,000,000,000 in spending without anybody being able to read the legislation. The transactions of our rulers were concealed from us. In that same speech, Henry said, “it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?” No, it is not. We must recognize the truth of our situation, no matter how hard it is to do so.

Samuel Adams, another member of the Founding generation, once said, ““What property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?” We may have “consented” to this massive spending by electing our representatives, but how can our children, who will themselves be burdened by this overwhelming and crippling debt, have consented to the taking of their money? We are committing an act of treachery upon our children and grandchildren that would have ashamed our ancestors.

Those men and women, it must be noted, were not railing against “the British”. They were arguing against their own government, and the individuals who made up their government. They were not opposed to a Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister who pushed for taxation without representation. They were not opposed to the idea of Parliament, but the members of Parliament who voted in favor of taxing the colonies for revenue without consent of those being taxed. For more than a decade, they were fighting for their rights as Englishmen, not as free Americans. They weren’t yet arguing for independence, but for real hope and change in their own established government. Do we not possess that same inherent right?

In 1775, just weeks before civil unrest erupted into civil war at a small village called Lexington, a young doctor named Joseph Warren stood in front of a crowd of Bostonians. It was the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, and the South Meeting House was crowded, not only with residents, but also with officers from His Majesty’s Army. They were given the best seats in the house that day, sitting just feet away from where Warren stood. Looking down from the lectern at the men he would soon face in armed combat, Warren spoke to them and the thousands of ordinary men and women, the Joe Six-Packs of their day, about the sacrifices their forefathers had made in order to establish a life free from tyranny.

“Even anarchy itself, that bugbear held up by the tools of power (though truly to be deprecated) is infinitely less dangerous to mankind than arbitrary government. Anarchy can be but of short duration; for when men are at liberty to pursue that course which is most conducive to their own happiness, they will soon come into it, and from the rudest state of nature, order and good government must soon arise. But tyranny, when once established, entails its curses on a nation to the latest period of time; unless some daring genius, inspired by heaven, shall, unappalled danger, bravely form and execute the arduous design of restoring liberty and life to his enslaved, murdered country.”

This country had not one daring genius in those days, but a whole host of men and women who were determined to fight for the liberty of themselves and their posterity. Warren himself lost his life a few months later at the Battle of Bunker Hill, leaving his four children orphans. With our population now more than 300 times that of our ancestors, imagine how many daring geniuses exist among us today!

We are not yet enslaved, though we have traveled a long way on the road to serfdom. We are not yet subsumed by a brave new world of collectivism. We still possess the means to fight, and yet I fear we lack the will to do so. I myself am too afraid to put my name to these words, because I have no idea what kind of backing this will receive. I am not worthy to compare myself to the least of the Founding generation, and yet I keep looking to them for guidance and inspiration. These men and women staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the idea that liberty was worth arguing for, worth defending, and eventually worth dying for if necessary. Has that idea truly died a quiet death without us noticing? Or may we, like good Dr. Warren, help nurse our country back to health?

I have recently seen talk of Revolution, which to me seems far too premature. Despite what most Americans seem to believe, the Revolution did not spontaneously begin with the Battle of Lexington and Concord. There was a reason why thousands of regular men felt compelled to stop their work, grab their musket, and march several miles to shoot at His Majesty’s troops. You don’t get that conviction over the course of a night, and we are far from that level of societal conviction.

Yet if history repeats itself, how far down the road to Revolution are we? John Adams said that the seeds of Revolution were first planted in 1750, when a preacher named Jonathan Mayhew delivered a sermon called “A Discourse on Unlimited Submission”. In it Mayhew argues that submission to arbitrary government or a government that does not listen to the People actually aids in the promotion of tyranny. To maintain the status quo, “would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies.” In other words, when the government begins to ignore the People, apathy is aiding and abetting the abuse of power. Have we even begun to recognize that basic concept?

How do the People begin to take the power back? First, we have to recognize that while revolution’s not the answer, the People (and that’s you and me) always retain the right of veto power. If it’s important enough, we can say no. At that point, it’s up to our Government to listen.

The fact is, our President has decided that his election was a mandate for this type of suicidal spending, despite the blatant break with the bedrock principles of liberty and freedom enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. So far, he has not shown he has been willing to listen. Therefore, we must become louder. We can do that in two ways; the first by growing our numbers, and secondly by maximizing the power of our own voice.

The internet is a wonderful conduit of communication, but it has replaced far too much of the face-to-face contact that we need with our friends and neighbors if we are to ever establish real opposition to the destructive policies we seek to challenge. We must re-establish those local bonds, forge local friendships and connections, and not rely so much on the internet, which, when the dominant means of communication, leads to impersonal and distant relationships. The patriots had newspapers and pamphlets to be sure, but equally as important were the Sons of Liberty chapters and other organizations that spread throughout the colonies.

Get together with your friends and neighbors one night a week and talk politics. Organize yourselves… pick one person to run for city council, or other local office and work for that candidate tirelessly. At the same time, use the internet to communicate and coordinate with others on a local, regional, and national basis. Use social networking sites to develop, not augment your existing social relationships. Establish a “Sons of Liberty”-type organization in your neighborhood, your town, your county, and state, but be sure to maintain the local and personal connection. Yes, it will occupy a lot of time. It may require you to stop watching as much television, or to not spend so much time on the computer. But that’s a small sacrifice for a much larger cause. If we do not do this now, the country we leave our children will be in many ways unrecognizable to the one we grew up in, and I don’t think we will like the changes.

Recognize that you will have many different ideas on many different social issues, but that is not important. The politics of Massachusetts were very different than the politics of Virginia, but the two states were stalwarts of resistance in the 1750’s and1760’s. You need not agree with everything your fellow patriots believe, as long as you all believe that continuing to allow these economic policies to go unchallenged would be an aiding and abetting of the murder of this still-great nation.

I am convinced that we need to have many more town hall meetings, though I confess to not knowing how best to accomplish such a task. Still, our elected federal representatives need to hear from us, and it’s far easier for them to come back home to us than it is for us to go them. Do we demand that Congress return home to hear from their constituents face-to-face before they vote on a bill with a price tag of more than 100,000,000,000? Would that have a greater effect on our officials than flooding their offices with phone calls and emails?

It may be that a majority of us lack the will to fight. We are a soft society these days, after all. However, we are not required to fight with arms. We are only required to speak louder than we have, and I believe that there are enough of us who have the will to speak. We have the will to govern our elected servants with the magnifying glass our ancestors used on their public officials. Politics is a conversation, and it’s time our officials remembered that We the People have a voice as well. We have the right to be heard, and our representatives have a duty to listen.

Is a sense of history important when it comes to examining current events?
	Yes, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
	Somewhat important. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.
	Not very important. What's more important is an understanding of how the world works today.
	Not important at all. Live in the now, man.

pollcode.com free polls