Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A (b)Old Statement
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.
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.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
We Are Lost
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:
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:
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.
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.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Where Have All the Statesmen Gone?
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?
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?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
An Errant Thought on Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama
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.
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.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Road
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.
"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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Wrong Way To Sell Conservatism
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.
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.
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.
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
Robert Stacy McCain on Hoffman's loss in NY-23 last night.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Dear 23
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Jacksonian Conservatism?
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:
As Damon Root pointed out at Reason last year:
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.
"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
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Worth 1,000 Words
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
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.
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.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Oh Those Glorious Days of Yesterday
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:
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.
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.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Don't Tread on Fox
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?
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?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Is Conservative the Anti-Funny?
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?
I mean, I suppose it's no less funny than SNL's
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
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
How Far We've Fallen: Gandhi Edition
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.
We need to control people through love and respect. Could Nancy Pelosi have put it any better?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)