Posts with the tag 'Conservatism'
Bob Beckel, taking a page right out of Barack Obama’s strategy book (the chapter on playing the victim card at every turn) whines about angry readers who wrote to him in response to a poorly written post at The Fox Forum about the “arrogance” of George Bush. He opined,
Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a Republican and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented scale this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people.
Yeah, we heard the same “you’re going to lose big time in November” line before back in 2004. But, Beckel’s wishful thinking is combined with a lack of understanding of what is really going on. Conservatism is not being rejected. Far from it. The truth is conservatives are frustrated when Republicans they elected stray from conservative principles. If conservatism was being rejected, as Beckel wants to believe, then Barack Obama wouldn’t be trying to win votes shifting his positions towards the center, and taking more conservative positions on the Second Amendment, tax cuts, even abortion.
1. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible yet when your crowd inherited a trillion-dollar surplus from Bill Clinton, Bush/Cheney and a Republican Congress turned it into a $3-trillion-dollar deficit.
You certainly won’t find fiscal conservatives justifying the increases in spending, but Beckel is absolutely ignoring the impact of the 2000-2001 Recession and 9/11. It is also worth noting that two key economic achievements of the 1990s, welfare reform and the balanced budget, while signed by Bill Clinton, came to be because of the efforts of the Republican Congress.
2. Conservatives strongly support the war in Iraq but won’t help pay for it. Never has our country been at war without asking and getting our citizens to help bear the financial burden…until this war. Conservatives don’t want to give up Bush’s tax cuts for the top 5% of wage earners to help pay for this war. Why?
I guess I must be in the top 5% of wage earners, because how else can I explain the tax cut that I received? But, I’m not in the top 5%, so, enough with that argument. Also, Beckel is either choosing to ignore the record economic growth that resulted from Bush’s tax cuts. And of course, Beckel’s argument loses all credibility when you consider government tax receipts went up as a result of those tax cuts.
3. The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached.
I’m sure the American people are tired of being lecture about the rich paying “their fair share” of taxes by rich Democrats in Congression who keep large chunks of their personal wealth in off-shore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes on it. I also can’t help mentioning Democrat governor Eliot Spitzer, who built his career on breaking up prostitution rings, only to be involved in one himself. Though, it may be true that conservatives are more likely to punish the hypocrites in their party than liberals are to punish the hypocrites in their party.
4. Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover.
And what have Democrats done to control spending and cut pork since returning to the majority? Oh yeah, nothing.
5. Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests.
Despite several investigations by various bipartisan and independent commissions and committees, all concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence, and that statements made by the administration were supported by the intelligence available at the time.
6. Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids.
Another ridiculous point predicated on the belief that health insurance should be funded by the government regardless of whether federal assistance is necessary. The Democrats’ proposed expansion of SCHIP would have provided taxpayer funded health insurance to children in families who didn’t need such government assistance - but also would have left many who needed it, with no such assistence.
7. Or maybe the public got embarrassed by Republicans in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”.
No, what’s more embarrassing are Democrats who think global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, and who are afraid to debate skeptics of global warming.
Beckel then concludes his poorly written list with a self-righteous rant filled with feigned resignation about his alleged experience with conservatives. If the situation were reversed, and a conservative pundit attempted to generalize liberals based on experiences with a select few, Beckel might have written something about how you can’t judge an entire party or ideology, based on an angry, vocal minority.
I expect Beckel to look at things through a partisan lens, but now I think he’s just blind. As a liberal, he certainly finds it in his best interest to talk about elections with an attitude of inevitability of the eventual positive for his party, but doing so really destroy’s his credibility as a political strategist and pundit.
Tags: Bob Beckel, Conservatism, debate, hypocrisy, liberal lies
July 5th, 2008
For all the talk of how the black vote or Hispanic vote might go, not much talk is expended on the white vote - but it will be at least 70% of all voters, so its going to matter, as Peter Brown notes:
It is more than a little ironic that it has taken the first African-American to win a major party presidential nomination to make clear to everyone what has been the case for more than 40 years in presidential elections: Democrats have a problem with white voters.
Suddenly, the topic du jour on television and radio talk shows, at water coolers and the most exclusive cocktail parties is how well Sen. Barack Obama can do among whites, especially the demographic group pundits call the “white working class.”
The truth is these voters have been around for decades. They’re “The Silent Majority,” “Jill and Joe Six-Pack” and “Reagan Democrats,” and whatever the name, they have given Democratic presidential candidates the back of their hands since 1964. That was the year Lyndon Johnson won in one of the biggest landslides in American history, and any demographic group he did not carry probably held its meetings in a telephone booth.
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton, the last Democrats to occupy the Oval Office since then, won a majority of white voters. Mr. Clinton came relatively close in 1996 and might have done so in 1992 had Ross Perot not been in the race. But focusing on those near misses overlooks the larger point: Sen. Obama, the son of a white mother and black father, could lose this election badly and still outdo the very pale — Sen. George McGovern in 1972, former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988 and possibly Sen. John Kerry in 2004 – among white voters.
Such discussion as there has been on the subject of white voters revolves around the tired argument of whether whites have gotten enough past their racism (something inherent to white people, according to one of the more ironic leftwing opinions) to vote for Obama - but as Brown points out, the fact that Obama is a liberal and weak on national security might be far more important to his weakness amongst white voters than the fact of his skin color.
Right now, the only reason Obama has a shot is because President Bush and the GOP are so very unpopular - if President Bush’s approval rating were even 45% right now, this election would be in the bag for McCain; but its not, so Obama is ahead and still has to be considered the inside favorite to win in November. But, in the end, will the American people - forget about race - vote for someone as unqualified as Obama when he is also on the extreme end of the American left? That is the question we’ll answer in November - and while liberals are convinced that President Bush’s unpopularity will carry Obama over the finish line no matter what, I am of the opinion that Obama is as high as he’s going to get in the polls based on his now-fading aura of change and President Bush’s unpopularity. To get to a majority of the vote, Obama is going to have to show - to voters who distrust the left intensely - that he will be there man, or at least enough of there man to convince working class whites to vote for the liberal egghead over the American war hero.
It can be done, but it won’t be easy - and thus I see the November election being excruciatingly close, all else being equal from this moment in time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism
June 30th, 2008
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Tags: Christianity, Conservatism, gay rights, liberal lies, liberalism, religious liberty
June 8th, 2008
So says Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure…
…Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.
Not surprisingly, conservative voters like less government while liberal voters favor a bigger government. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of politically moderate voters prefer smaller government. A separate survey found that most adults (56%) are worried that the next president will raise taxes too much.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters think American society is generally fair and decent. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think it is unfair and discriminatory. Those numbers have become slightly more positive over the past month.
A lot of bad news in there for Obama and the basic leftwing worldview…this, though, tends to confirm (with the proviso that polls are always weak reeds) my long held view that America is at bottom a center/right nation; any politician who can bring together the center and the right will have the majority, while any attempt to curry favor with the left will make a politician just about un-electable. This year is the best year for the left to win not because the left is popular, but because the right is less popular than usual, and many consevatives are threatening to sit it out…but if McCain can re-energise the right and carry with him the center he’s already got, then he will win in November.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism, spending, taxes
May 27th, 2008
Not that British politics means all too much for the United States, but here’s an example of how even the slickest leftism backed by the entire popular culture and its MSM can still be beaten by conservatism:
Conservative leader David Cameron hailed his party’s victory in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election as marking the “end of New Labour”.
But while describing Edward Timpson’s triumph - on an emphatic swing of 17.6 per cent - as “remarkable”, Mr Cameron added: “I know we still have a long way to go.”
Mr Timpson wiped out the 7,000 majority achieved by the late Gwyneth Dunwoody in the 2005 general election, to win by a margin of almost 8,000 votes over the former MP’s daughter Tamsin.
Labour’s Deputy Leader Harriet Harman conceded that voters were demanding action on the faltering economy and angry about soaring oil and food prices and the Government’s handling of the abolition of the 10p tax rate.
Maggie Thatcher’s campaign slogan from 1979 was “Labour Isn’t Working” - a double hit on rising British unemployment and the fact that the Labour party really had no clue on what to do about it. Naturally, a leftwing party never, ever has a clue on what to do about things because leftist thought is wrong from the start, and thus can’t get it right. “New Labour” coasted to victory on the back of a stunning rise in world prosperity starting in the 90’s (mostly, of course, the result of Thatcherism in the UK and Reaganism in the USA) which cloaked its manifest failure to get anything right. Blair proved a brilliant politician and showed he had rare courage in backing the liberation of Iraq, but in fiscal and social policy, he was a mess…and his successor is just more so, without the charm of Blair. Now that more stringent times are on offer, Labour is failing to figure out what needs to be done, just as the American left hasn’t a clue (though this is masked by the fact that they are the “out” party, and may get rewarded simply for being such in November…but if the left does win, it’ll all come crashing down as people get a good look at leftwing incompetance).
Keep this in mind, fellow conservatives - if we do enter the political wildnerness in November, it will have an end…we’d prefer to spare our nation a dose of leftism, but we’ll also stand prepared to endure, knowing that the left will mess it up, and the people will turn back to us, just as they are in the UK.
Tags: British politics, Conservatism, Labour Party, Tony Blair, Tory Party
May 23rd, 2008
As Yuval Levin notes:
George Packer of The New Yorker has penned the latest in a long line (reaching back many decades) of obituaries for conservatism. Like so many in the genre, it consists of a description of a movement in the midst of intellectual turmoil, searching for ways to apply its basic insights about government, human nature, and the culture to changing times, and it takes this turmoil to be a sign of decay or self-destruction. Packer discusses some of the younger conservatives (he mentions Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Reihan Salam, among other examples) who are working to apply conservative principles and insights to the moment we’re living in, and yet he takes these signs, too, to suggest only gloom and doom for the Right. He points to intellectual fatigue (a phrase he quotes me using in the piece) but not to promising signs of resurgence and revitalization.
Let me suggest two things he might have noted. First of all, the kind of intellectual turmoil and self-searching he cites would be almost unimaginable on the left, today or at most points in the past half century. Conservatism is an intellectual movement in a way that American liberalism generally hasn’t been. For a long time, American liberals could draw their ideas from the European Left, and from the socialist experiment. The fall of communism—which certainly ended an era for the Right, and left many conservatives searching for a clear purpose—was far more of a challenge to the Left, and one the left has yet to recover from, or even fully engage. Clintonian triangulation helped pass the time for a while in the 90’s, and anti-Bushism has helped since, but what is the worldview underlying Obama’s and Clinton’s platforms today? The relative absence of heated arguments about that question on the left is not a sign of strength.
Second, he might note the character of the Democratic resurgence in Congress, evident in 2006 and in the much-discussed triad of Republican defeats this year. The general pattern suggests a concerted effort by the Democrats to recruit socially conservative but economically populist candidates to run against Republicans. This is a smart tactic for building strength in Congress (engineered largely by Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton lieutenant) but it is hardly a sign of strength for the Left (which has come to define itself first and foremost in cultural terms in recent years), or of weakness for conservatism. Democrat Travis Childers, who won a once-secure Republican seat in Mississippi last week, took every possible opportunity to describe himself as “pro-life and pro-gun” and to distance himself from Barack Obama.
We GOPers may, indeed, end up clobbered this November - and that would usher in a very liberal period under a President Obama coupled with a Congress headed up by liberals (ie, Reid and Pelosi)…but that would not mean we conservatives are out of the game.
I think that Levin does miss a bit of what is happening - I don’t think that the left is failing to redefine itself and adjust to modern times so much as the left is anti-intellectual through and through and doesn’t want to think about things. Leftists are un-intellectual sheep…if you try to introduce into the discussion anything which clearly refutes their views, they scamper into the bunker….these days, its the anti-Bush bunker…if we point out, say, that the Iraqi army clearly did beat the Sadrists, their response will be to condemn some aspect of President Bush; they lack the intellectual ability and desire to engage in the free exchange of ideas (side note: this is 90% of leftists…there are a very few who can think, such as Christopher Hitchens, and you can see how most of the left views them…you’d think the few thinking lefties would grab a clue here on what this means about leftism…but even the most intelligent on the left have some glaring blind spots).
Meanwhile, we conservatives are a throng of competing ideas and willingness to argue intensely about what is best - in a very real sense, to be a thinking person means to be a conservative these days. If anything, conservatism is the victim of its own success these days…we won the Cold War, won the debate on how to deal with crime, won the debate on gun control, won the debate on taxation, won the debate on deficit spending (yes, I know the GOP went on a spending binge…but for Democrats in 2008 to pose as fiscal hawks is absurd…but their saying they are is proof that we won the debate on deficit spending), won the debate on military strength, won the debate on welfare. We’re still arguing with the left about entitlements, the War on Terrorism, gay marriage and abortion; we’re arguing amongst ourselves about immigration (liberals want open borders - they won’t say it, but that is what they want)…and as the issues have narrowed to these, stresses in the conservative movement have become noticable.
You see, some conservatives figure that the cultural issues (abortion and gay marriage) should fall into the libertarian aspects of conservatism and are best left alone…other conservatives (and I’m one of them) view the cultural issues as crucial…in fact, more important than anything else in the long run. The debate over what to emphasize and what to downplay is causing some divisions - but the debate will go on until a conservative consensus is reached (which may be a lot quicker than most people imagine), and then a unified and intellectually strong conservatism will do battle with the left, and we’ll win those arguments, too (the real battle is internal - the right fighting the left in a battle of intellect is like the Dallas Cowboys taking on your local Pop Warner team). Not only is there life in conservatism, it is the only alive intellectual, political, moral and economic movement in America…the rest are all dead, dead, dead…
So, be of good heart, fellow conservatives. We may get our butts handed to us in November at the ballot box (though I’m not at all sure about that), but come what may we will win in the end - because the dead mind of liberalism can hate and be very nasty, but it can’t actually provide anything for the people…eventually, a triumphant liberalism will fall apart (and probably pretty quickly), and we’ll come back. Fight on and fight hard - don’t worry about immediate outcomes…just keep your eyes firmly on the prize of an America governed entirely from the conservative paradigm…where we’ll debate which free market policy to follow; where we’ll debate which pro-life policy is best; where we’ll debate which muscular American foreign policy will better secure our interests…and the sad, dead liberalism which stinks up the place today is nothing but a bad memory…
Tags: Conservatism
May 23rd, 2008
The headlines are all focusing on McCain’s “victory in 2013″ statement, but his whole speech is a lot more important than just what he says about the war:
The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us. Long overdue reforms to the way we acquire weapons programs, including fixed price contracts, have created sufficient savings to pay for a larger military. A substantial increase in veterans educational benefits and improvements in their health care has aided recruitment and retention. The strain on the National Guard and reserve forces has been relieved.
Round about a century ago in what was then the world’s lone super power - Great Britain - Haldane in charge of the War Office and “Jacky” Fisher in charge of the Admiralty gave Britain a larger and more power army and navy, at less cost than the country had been spending. Waste was cut and organization improved and more powerful weapons and forces forged simply by intelligent application of good ideas. There is much wast an inefficiency in our defense sector - not the troops fault, but its there and it can be corrected by a man determined to confront the entrenched interests at DoD and Congress (ie, the Murthas of the world) who like things fine just they way they are.
After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world’s repeated declaration that we would “never again” tolerant such inhumanity.
Long time readers know that I’ve been in favor of something like the “League of Democracies” for years now - and I’m delighted that McCain seems determined to push forward with this…with the implied sidelining of the moribund UN and a resultant increase in the global community’s ability to actual do things about horrible problems.
Congress has just passed by a single up or down vote a tax reform proposal that offers Americans a choice of continuing to file under the rules of the current complicated and burdensome tax code or use a new, simpler, fairer and flatter tax, with two rates and a generous deduction. Millions of taxpayers are expected to file under the flat tax, and save billions in the cost of preparing their returns.
If this isn’t pure Reaganism, then I don’t know what is.
After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. A top to bottom review of every federal bureaucracy has yielded great reductions in government spending by identifying programs that serve no important purpose; and instigating far reaching reforms of procurement and operating policies that have for too long extravagantly wasted money for no better purpose than to increase federal payrolls.
You want government spending controlled? Then you’ve got McCain, or you’ve got nobody…and please note that McCain sees where a lot of this government growth comes from; a mere desire to increase federal payrolls. Given that the government employees union (AFSCME) is hopelessly corrupt and entirely in the DNC’s pocket, any increase in government payrolls helps the Democrats and thus the political left…anything which cuts the growth of government payroll works opposite.
Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history. Reforms of the insurance market; putting the choice of health care into the hands of American families rather than exclusively with the government or employers…
Once again, pure Reaganism…and in stark contrast to Obama’s semi-socialist and Hillary’s completely socialist plans for health care.
Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them and make sure they are consistent with the Constitution. They are judges of exceptional character and quality, who enforce and do not make laws, and who respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
This is the crucial battle for conservatives - if we get the judges, then we can eventually overturn the absurd liberal rulings, and then use the law to actually reform America back to the constitutional Republic originally intended. Fail to get the judges and everything else we do is worthless in the long run.
Border state governors have certified and the American people recognize that after tremendous improvements to border security infrastructure and increases in the border patrol, and vigorous prosecution of companies that employ illegal aliens, our southern border is now secure. Illegal immigrants who broke our laws after they came here have been arrested and deported. Illegal immigration has been finally brought under control, and the American people accepted the practical necessity to institute a temporary worker program and deal humanely with the millions of immigrants who have been in this country illegally.
I know a lot of you guys get burned up about the guest worker program - but the heck with you; and, at any rate, McCain has promised (again and again) to secure the borders first…so you’re going to get what you say you really want.
All in all, it is a progam that anyone who isn’t a kook lefty should love - and there’s more in it than just what I’ve noted. Failure to vote for McCain is not only dumb, but suicidal for conservatism.
Tags: Conservatism, John McCain, Reaganism
May 16th, 2008
Andy McCarthy over at NRO’s The Corner speaks for many:
The likelihood is not a post-Bush Republicanism but a post-Republican conservatism. Most of us care about the party only insofar as it serves the movement, not the other way around. If the party is no longer doing that — or, worse, if it is setting us backwards — then it’s time to abandon the party, not the movement.
Conservatism is all about first principles - so let us re-state for the record just what conservatism came about to do. There wasn’t in the days of yore a “conservative” society upon which liberalism started to work - there was the society, and liberalism came along in the mid-18th century and proposed a series of radical changes in how this society worked. Please note that - it came along in the mid-18th century…there was 18 centuries of this society; 18 centuries in which there was massive changes in society, but the fundamentals of that society remained in place and were generally accepted without question. Liberalism didn’t want to tinker around the edges, but wanted wholesale and fundamental change - a complete re-working in the relations between men, between men and government, and between men and God, if there was even to be a place in this new society for God. Conservatism arose after liberalism - it was a response, and it started towards the very end of the 18th century, as Burke observed the excesses of the French Revolution and started to carefully state what was right about the old ways, and what was wrong about the underlying beliefs of those who wanted to change it completely.
Conservatism, at bottom, is the defense of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization against all of those - for whatever reason - who seek to overthrow Judeo-Christianity and replace it with a new paradigm. In this conservatism is equally opposed to liberalism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, libertarianism, communism - but, also, to those elements in society which are not of the political “isms”, but are in direct opposition to Judeo-Christianity. These would be things like consumerism, welfarism, pornography - and in a certain but very real sense, against laissez-faire capitalism, that bastard outgrowth of 18th century liberalism which became, in time, merely an excuse for the rich to grind the faces of the poor. Having no problems with the free market and no objection to a man gaining great wealth through his diligence and hard work, it is still a Judeo-Christian principle that the mere piling up of money is immoral, and as the enterprising build their wealth, there must be care taken to ensure that they aren’t doing so without any thought to the needs of society as a whole.
The source of conservative trouble has been the so-called division of conservatism into “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” lines - truth be told, the only real conservatism is “social conservatism”. Fiscal conservatism is the latching on to the political power of social conservatives by those who will take the conservative desire for low taxes and non-intrusive government and use it as a means of advancing the cause of mere money-making. Conservatives don’t want low taxes because it helps the economy so much as they want them because in Judeo-Christian principle, God makes the person contained within his family the steward of wealth - to pass the wealth of the family to government is to abdicate one’s responsibility. Fiscal conservatives want low taxes because this makes it possible for them to make money faster and in larger amounts - something no conservative really gives a darn about. The artificial division - which is really a marriage of convenience for political purposes - in the consevative movement is what leads to our current crisis of confidence - as fiscal conservatives bemoan things like McCain’s global warming plan due to its possible deletrious effects on economic growth, while conservatives remain fixed on what is really important to conservatism…the appointment of conservative judges, the winning of the war for this nation established by God to be the bastion of liberty and religion in the world, the prospect that the powers of government will be used to defend the family rather than attack it.
This is not to say that conservatives can’t or won’t take exception to various aspects of McCain’s global warming plan, or other efforts of his (notably things like CFR) - but the crucial battles for conservatism are not whether we’ll have “cap and trade” and absurd restrictions on campaign spending, but whether marriage will remain between one man and one woman; that parents will remain the ultimate authority in a child’s life; that religion will be permitted in the public square; that - God willing - we’ll one day end the scourge of abortion upon our nation. Next to such fundamental issues, how money is moved around in capital markets is trivial. McCain is a conservative in the most vital sense of the word - he’s for family, for God, for country and he’ll enact policies which will defend all of these. Obama is an ultra-liberal - in spite of his high sounding rhetoric about family, God and country, the fact of his policies is an unrelenting war on all three and, indeed, on all of the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christian civilization. Given this stark choice in November, conservatives won’t have to “hold their nose” and vote McCain, but will enthusiastically do so - and then be more than prepared to battle McCain over some of the things he wants to do (such as the aforementioned global warming proposals). But these battles will be carried on between ladies and gentlemen who are all of the same fundamental beliefs - and so real solutions can be found and compromise effected…unlike the impossibility of real compromise between liberalism and conservatism.
Between those who are conservative and those who are fiscal conservatives, there is a community of interests - most notably in the desire that government be restricted in its scope. When someone wants to help you out of a ditch, you don’t worry if he wants to help you out because of altruism, or because he’s hoping you’ll give him a reward - you just want out of the ditch - and so he’s your friend. Conservatism and fiscal conservatism can travel a long way together with no problem - and can politely agree to disagree on some things and battle for their own views in the public square. But conservatism cannot become an adjunct of fiscal conservatism - that would mean conservatism was abandoning itself. If someone out there wishes to work with me to lower taxes, then he is my ally on that issue - if after that he wishes to fight to keep abortion legal, then he and I will part ways on that issue…but I won’t compromise my basic principles - and I won’t ask someone else to do so, either - just to feel better about my prospects at election time. Fiscal conservatives will have to decide for themselves what they want in November - while McCain is not with them 100%, he’s certainly more of an ally than Obama will ever be, so a fiscal conservative failure to vote for McCain is the acme of silliness…but others will do what they think is best. Meanwhile, as a conservative, I will fight hard for McCain because he’s one of mine - in spite of disagreements on this or that policy, he is a kindred spirit and a man who defends the same things I defend.
It is my view that the American people are broadly conservative in their views - as all people have been at all times. People do prefer the tried and true to the innovative. Innovation there must be from time to time, but there’s never any rush and any change should be done with great care. We conservatives can, by sticking to principle, win the support of the majority of the American people - and fiscal conservatives can be helpful in this endevour. But as we speak of a general conservatism, we must never lose sight of the fact that this doesn’t mean a wholesale subscription to the ideas of the Chicago School of economics. The most conservative Americans in the world are ticked off at high gas prices - they don’t go for the stupidity of leftwing thinking on it (ie, an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher), but the high prices are annoying, and if supposed conservative leaders want to offer a series of excuses for the high prices - even if the most carefully reasoned in terms of basic economics - then they are going to get blindsided by the guys who are proposing solutions, even if foolish solutions (such as those offered by the Democrats). One can disdain plans for lowering the price gas, but unless there is a plan for the party going into November, it will be a severe drag on votes…and such a drag is not just a risk to conservatism, but very much to fiscal conservatism, as well. Better to work out a plan - even if parts of it are in technical violation of laissez-faire capitalism - than to have no plan while the other guy does.
So think about it, fellow conservatives (social and fiscal) - for all our differences, we have far more in common with each other than either of us do with the other side. We can split into hostile camps and ensure the eventual socialist destruction of America, or we can unite and save what we hold dear - and then engage in friendly argument over those things we disagree about. If conservatism - both parts - hangs together and puts out a comprehensive plan encompasing economics and morality, then conservatism can carry the day in November and beyond. Each side will have to give a little (without given up on essentials) in the service of the common fight - and we’ll find out over the next few months whether there is this wisdom within our ranks, or whether we’ll be united only in our mutual defeat.
Tags: Conservatism, John McCain, poltiical ideology
May 16th, 2008
Bobby Jindal leading the way in Louisiana:
Jindal ‘bats a thousand’ at session
BATON ROUGE — The state Legislature on Friday wrapped up its second special session during the 2-month-old administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal by completing a full sweep of the governor’s proposed package of business tax cuts and $1.1 billion in surplus spending priorities.
Jindal and his legislative allies won all the initiatives they set out to accomplish during the six-day session, including a controversial bill to grant a partial tax deduction for private school tuition.
Flanked by many members of his supporting team of lawmakers at an evening news conference, the governor framed the results as a positive statement on Louisiana’s national image.
“This group should be proud of batting a thousand,” Jindal said. “The country’s watching us … we know they’ll like what they see.”
The session followed a February lawmaking period in which the governor passed a slate of new ethics laws. A regular spring session of the Legislature will begin March 31.
Lawmakers passed bills to eliminate a 1 percent sales tax that businesses pay on utilities, an estimated annual savings to Louisiana companies — as well as a loss of state revenue — of $69 million. They also passed an expedited phaseout of taxes on corporate debt and on manufacturing machinery and equipment. Those taxes were widely seen as burdens on companies that expand their operations, therefore placing Louisiana at a competitive disadvantage with other states.
What have you Democrats got as your “breath of fresh air”? Barack Obama - an ultra-liberal product of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine…you can keep him; we GOPers have genuine change we can believe in. Bobby Jindal is just starting out, and he’s already done more real things for people than Barack Obama could ever dream of doing - it is in this youthful, idealistic conservatism where we’ll finally win all down the line, crushing the life out of that leftwing thought which has been desrtoying our nation for decades.
You can’t win, lefties - your worldview is built on lies and thus it never, ever works when put into practice. Sure, you’ll be able to win an election or two, from time to time, but not by running on what you are; only by hiding it…but we’re out there, telling people what we believe, and then putting it into place…and it works, every time we try.
Tags: Bobby Jindal, Conservatism, government reform, Louisiana
March 15th, 2008
Older Posts
