Right Minds

An Abortion Party

2009-07-08T21:04:00.000-07:00

There’s this column in AlterNet written by Bynard Duncan that’s raising some eyebrows around the conservative side of the Internet. It’s called “My First Abortion Party,” and it’s easy to see why it raised conservative eyebrows. The whole thing is basically pointless—Duncan describes the infamous party, then seems to realize there’s some more space to fill and asks some questions he doesn’t even try to answer (“what are the inherent emotional features of being "male" or "female?”), and then allows for room for anger and disagreement.

Overall, it’s a pretty poorly written piece, but that’s not why conservatives noticed it. The hook, of course, is Duncan’s “first” abortion party, like invitations to such parties are normal and are just pouring in for most people.

Duncan sets up the situation:

"Have you guys heard the news?" Maggie (name changed) unwrapped the scarf from around her neck and patted her flat belly. "Preggers." It was around 30 degrees outside, and her cheeks were splashed pink from the Indiana wind.
She had discovered earlier that week, after missing a period and taking the test. "I kind of knew already. My boobs and my lower back have been killing me for a while."

Yeah, that’s a confirmed feminist all right. You might think that a 22 year-old college senior (as “Maggie” is) might be a little worried, but “Maggie” is just as cool as a cucumber. Because that’s just how modern girls act, or at least how Duncan thinks they should act.

I’m not even sure how he’s supposed to know Maggie, anyway. She’s supposed to be his girlfriend’s best friend, but he looks a lot older than college age in his Facebook picture (the only information I could find about him), and his girlfriend looks even older than he does.

Anyway, Maggie is going to have a party to help raise money for her abortion, which is the part that gets conservatives mad, and hopefully even makes liberals a little uncomfortable. So Duncan and Ali (that’s his girlfriend) walk in, and

we were bludgeoned with a blast of hot air, followed by the tangy stink of dance floor revelry. Someone had taken a red bed sheet and hung it below a light fixture to resemble a giant womb. Every so often, a dancer’s head or arm or dreadlock would brush against one of its smooth folds, creating a rippling effect. "Let’s Go Crazy" by Prince was playing.

Sounds like a pretty crazy party, huh? They even found a red bed sheet, which I didn’t think existed. (I’ve never seen one, at least). And they have a song with an fitting title playing. Sounds like quite the scene of debauchery, huh?

Or not.

I sat down and struck up a conversation with Eli, the three-year-old son of one of the partygoers.

Given that Maggie is supposed to be a college senior, I wonder how many people old enough to have a three year old son she knows well enough to invite to her parties. And honestly, I’d love to have a look at little Eli’s parents. Given the circumstances, I’d guess the poor kid would be surrounded by alcohol and underage drinking, giving him a head start on alcoholism that most drunks only dream about.

Maggie’s boyfriend was also there, though he was “looking uncomfortably alone,” since I guess Maggie’s friends were angry at him for his involvement in the abortion, though I’m not sure what they wanted. Duncan used this fact to raise his questions about differences between male and female, though since he never even tries to answer them they just come off as silly and pointless.

Now, I doubt the abortion party happened as Duncan said. The party seems sometimes to be a shocking scene of debauchery, and then turns out to be pretty family friendly. Maggie’s calmness in the face of her difficult situation is pretty odd. And I find it difficult to think that Maggie’s friends would be angry at her boyfriend for being too involved; rather, I think it’d be more likely the other way around.

There’s a chance “Maggie” read that article, and I can’t believe that Duncan would make the situation so recognizable that her identity would be exposed to any acquaintances reading. So Duncan probably changed enough details to both conceal identities and make the thing more interesting. The real story was probably a lot less shocking, and a lot more boring.

Still, the article reveals something interesting about the pro-choice mentality. The whole first half is nothing more than an attempt (a successful one) to shock pro-lifers, while simultaneously attempting to portray abortion as normal and commonplace. (Remember, this is his “first abortion party, so presumably there will be many more).

This tactic is characteristic of the pro-abortion movement as a whole. Their position—that abortion is moral—is indefensible. (Not that this proves abortion is wrong—but it is impossible, outside the theological sphere, to say when the soul enters the body. And if you don’t believe in the soul, I honestly don’t understand how one could put a value on human life). So if it is very difficult to win converts via logical debate, the next best thing is an appeal to emotion, where abortion is painted as both normal and necessary.

What Will Palin Do Next?

2009-07-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin’s weird resignation is still rocking the political world, especially since the Michael Jackson funeral has driven comparatively unimportant topics such as U.S.-Russia relations well off the radar. (I didn’t plan to watch the Jackson special, but some unexpected events led me to a seat in a McDonald’s under a TV showing it. Al Sharpton—who to my knowledge had absolutely nothing to do with Jackson when he was alive—was speaking, which tells you all you need to know about it). So political news is stuck on the last big story, and every pundit out there is frantically trying to figure why Palin resigned, and where she goes from here.

Such speculation about Palin’s is utterly pointless, of course, since there isn’t anything to go on besides her weird farewell speech, and while it isn’t particularly easy to decipher is clear enough to speak for itself. Palin seems to have quit due to three main reasons—frustration at her limited influence as Alaska’s governor, disgust over the constant media scrutiny of her family, and weariness about the constant and—so far—groundless ethical complaints.

Those reasons aren’t really that compelling. Governor of Alaska might not be the most influential position in politics, but still, it does have some influence, and Palin’s assertion that she is now a “lame duck” because she won’t run for reelection in a year and a half is just strange. Any while the ethics complaints are no doubt annoying, and expensive for Alaska, few if any of them seem to be valid, and they are a part of the job. (Note: if, as some speculate, it turns out Palin resigned due to a ethical or personal scandal, ignore that last sentence).

Palin’s concern for her family is the closest thing she had to a legitimate reason to quit. The attacks on her, and her family, have been really over-the-top and cruel, and there doesn’t seem to have been much fact-checking involved. But she seems to have an intention of staying in politics—she mentioned a “higher calling” and quoted O.P. Smith, saying that she “wasn’t retreating, but advancing in another direction,” and opened a Twitter account.

Palin seems to want a political future. But does she have one? Every cable news pundit has tried to answer that question, and if so, to guess how Palin will try to rebrand herself.

My guess, which is completely unfounded and is almost certainly wrong (but every other blogger is doing the same thing, so can you blame me?), is that Palin is planning a presidential run built solely on a populist platform. Palin doesn’t seem to be particularly popular with the elites in the Republican party, and there can’t be many Washington power brokers who like her. The mainstream media still dislikes her, so creating a favorable image with these handicaps, while stuck as governor of an unimportant and isolated state, may have seemed like too daunting a challenge. Palin is still popular among the conservative rank and file, so she may very well have felt going populist was the way to go.

Now, Palin is free to pull down lots of cash via speaking gigs, and can spend more of her time writing her book. (Or, possibly, supervising her ghostwriter’s work). She will, I think, run for president in 2012, and if she does, she will run only on the cult of personality that is Sarah Palin. She won’t have anything else—expect perhaps for the support of Rush Limbaugh and some of Fox News, which is not inconsiderable. But she will be forced to do without any help from the Republican party or many interest groups, at any rate unless she wins the nomination.

Would a Palin populist platform succeed? It shouldn’t. Palin showed promise as John McCain’s running mate, and didn’t do terribly poorly in a very difficult position, but since then has become a broken record (always whining about media unfairness, and if her complaints are not invalid, they do become tedious), and has acted unpardonably in her resignation. I couldn’t imagine myself voting for her.

I would guess that many Republicans feel the same way. But it doesn’t do to underestimate Sarah Palin. If an unlikely 2012 run succeeded, she would hardly be the first presidential candidate to win on little more than a smile and a speech. (Obama springs to mind, and so does Kennedy). Palin probably won’t ever be president now, and probably won’t ever even come close. But she does have some remarkable talent, and it would be foolish to write her off.

Another note. Some pundits are saying that Palin was foolish to accept McCain’s running mate offer. She might regret it, but politically, it was a smart move to make. She was governor of Alaska, and such offers don’t often come along for people in that position. Accepting McCain’s offer was the wisest course for her.

The Left's War on Science

2009-07-04T10:09:00.000-07:00

During the Bush years, one of the most commonly leveled charges against Bush and conservatives was the “politization of science.” There was more than a little truth to these charges, though Bush did not so much “politicize” science as ignore any undesirable science—Bush probably believed in evolution, but he was sympathetic to intelligent design proponents, and ignored any science proving global warming.

This is, or should be, sort of embarrassing for conservatives. Conservatism prides itself on its strict allegiance to facts (though I guess most political philosophies would do that), and the outright denial of evolution, and the disregard for any evidence of global warming flies in the face of that ethos. Conservatives should do a little self-examination on this issue.

Conservatives should do some self-examination—emphasis on the self part, because they do not need any help from liberals. Liberals are in no position to criticize conservatives for their attitude towards science—their attitude towards science is just as careless and selective as that of conservatives.

Take feminist theory (which isn’t, perhaps, science in the strictest sense, though a bachelors degree in feminist studies is technically a bachelors of science degree, and it does involve sifting evidence and forming hypothesis’s). Feminism is taught in a great many colleges, and is considered—at least on the Left—as a legitimate course of study. Yet the most respected feminist textbooks are full of obviously false “facts.”

In Nancy Lemon’s Domestic Violence Law, Lemon explains that the phrase “rule of thumb” arose from laws in Romulus’ Rome regulating the width of wife-beating rods. She also reveals that between twenty and thirty-five percent of women in emergency rooms are there due to domestic violence, and that women who are domestically abused are twice as likely to suffer miscarriages and birth defects. All these “facts” are completely baseless—yet university professors continue to pass them off as solid truth.

Another example of liberal disregard for science is its attitude towards global warming. Most liberals believe in the existence of man-made global warming, and given that most scientists do too, they are probably right to do so. But their support for climate change regulation too often seems to exist independently of the science of global warming, and they are quite willing to ignore inconvenient truths to advance their agenda.

A while back, environmentalists circulated a poignant picture to bring home to Americans the effects of global warming. It showed two confused looking polar bears stuck on an ice floe, with open water all around them. It was an effective shot—when the iceberg finished melting (thanks to global warming of course), the polar bears would presumably sink to a watery death, all thanks to remorseless Western consumption.

In reality, that sort of thing is quite common, global warming or no global warming. Icebergs exist no matter the earth’s temperature, and polar bears are pretty good swimmers, so they rarely drown, no matter how far they end up drifting.

Japan’s Mount Kilimanjaro is famous for its snowcapped summit. That snow is melting, which was another striking global warming image—until it was revealed that the mountain’s snows had been melting for decades—well before man-made global warming had begun.

Anthropogenic global warming is real, but the proper way to get the public’s attention is not to fabricate scary anecdotes. This sort of thing is every bit as dishonest as those who attempt to disprove global warming using obviously bad science.

It is not only the Right that is guilty of politicizing science. The Left is equally guilty—and sometimes more so. Both sides accept only that science which conforms with their beliefs—and ignores the rest.

Revolution Over

2009-06-27T18:20:00.000-07:00

It looks like Michael Jackson's death has more or less ended the whole Iranian revolution thing. Yeah, there were other factors, such as the Iranian government's crackdown on dissidents, but the MJ saga pushed it off the front page pretty quickly, meaning that the mullahs could get away with murder. (Literally, in some cases). I never thought the revolutionaries had much of chance, but it's sad to see it end.

Michael Jackson R.I.P.

2009-06-27T07:13:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson is dead at fifty. And the reaction to his death is fitting. Every cable news and entertainment channel, and most every radio station, is running (or at least was running—it has been more than twenty-four hours since Jackson died) wall-to-wall coverage of his death. The death of Michael Jackson is a lucrative business—aside from the monster television ratings to be had, Jackson’s albums are selling again—Thriller hit #1 on Amazon.

This orgy of profit is appropriate, given Jackson’s career arc. He was deprived of any sort of childhood by his abusive father, forced to practice singing and not much else. His success as a child star condemned him to a sort of eternal childhood—his handlers injected him with female hormones to preserve his youthful voice, and he was encouraged to live in a Peter Pan, never-grow-up world.

Jackson bore some responsibility for his increasingly eccentric actions—but he never really had a chance. No one could do much given his circumstances—instant fame, but incredible pressure and dreadful and sometimes abusive authority figures. His fame would have nigh-impossible for even the most balanced person to handle. In Michael Jackson’s case, the results were horrible.

He went a little mad, ruining his face with plastic surgeries, allegedly molesting children, and going from riches to rags, dying a poor man. Michael Jackson was an icon, a legend, one of pop music’s greatest figures—but also an American tragedy.

The Big Government Bubble

2009-06-25T06:00:00.000-07:00

Over the past seventy years, Americans have seen an incredible growth in their country’s standard of living and position in the world. America is the world’s undisputed superpower, militarily and especially economically. The dollar is the world’s standard currency, and the American economy drives that of the rest of the world.

Americans also live luxuriously. America consumes twenty-five percent of the world’s resources, and only a few countries have a higher standard of living. The American Dream—a house, two cars, and a college education (or well-paying blue collar work) is a widespread reality in America, and America is one of the few countries in which every citizen has a chance at such a lifestyle.

This sort of lifestyle started after the Second World War. True, before that, America was known as a country that offered good living conditions, and played an important part in the world economy, but living conditions in America were not notably better than in Europe, and the richest Europeans probably lived better than the richest Americans.

(Certainly, Western culture was centered in Europe at the time. The magician Harry Houdini, for example, traveled to England to gain legitimacy by wowing English audiences before returning to America a success. Now European stars like Simon Cowell have to impress American audiences to get the highest praise in their home countries.)

After World War II, however, things changed, and American became the superpower it is today. (The Soviet Union offered some competition, but never came anywhere near American living conditions or economic strength, and eventually spectacularly collapsed). So, what changed after World War II to make America to powerful?

To some degree, it was World War II itself, and the subsequent Cold War. War provides the most powerful incentive for innovation and production, and America progressed technologically and economically during the war. (Indeed, the war lifted America out of the Great Depression).

And World War II eliminated some of the competition, too. Most of Europe was trying to rebuild after seven years of total war. America became the world’s economic leader partly because the foundations of the rest of the world had been shaken.

But that doesn’t explain why the U.S. economy kept growing in the seventy years after the war. There must be another explanation for the U.S.’s growth.

I think that that the reason for America’s growth is due, in part, to the federal government’s spending. Education is important. After World War II, the GI Bill provided housing and college education to hundreds of thousands of young Americans. Worries about retirement cause hoarding, which slows spending. But Social Security eased worries about retirement. Housing is expensive—but it’s not so bad when Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can (indirectly) provide you with a mortgage. Medical care is expensive too—but since only about 10% of Americans pay for their health insurance out of their own pocket, Americans don’t have to worry about that so much.

All those programs are expensive to pay for. So the federal government, displaying real American ingenuity and know-how, devised a clever solution to that problem: it stopped paying for it. The federal debt skyrocketed—but it didn’t affect your average American, and nobody cared.

You might remember the housing bubble, which recently burst and had a lot in common with what we are dealing with today. Housing prices went higher and higher, and people borrowed more and more money on the value of their homes. Then people realized there was a surplus of housing, and the housing market shrank. But since many people had borrowed on their homes, they were forced to default on their loans, which hurt the banks, and threw the whole economy into chaos.

Like the housing market of the Bush years, the government is growing too fast and has too many liabilities built into it. When the government is forced to deal with its debt—and it will be, eventually, it will no longer be able to keep up its lavish welfare system.

And when that happens, the whole system will come crashing down. Americans will be forced to reach into their own pockets to pay for their health care, housing, education, and retirement. The government bubble will burst. And while it’s impossible to predict the precise effect that will have on the economy, it is certain it will not be pretty.

Of course, economics is tricky, even for experts, and maybe none of this will come to pass. But I think it will, though I hope I’m wrong.

Iran and Liberals

2009-06-24T06:35:00.000-07:00

The recent elections in Iran have gotten a great deal of worldwide attention, and rightly so. Iran’s mullah’s handled the election horribly—they chose which candidates would be eligible to run, and of those candidates handpicked Mamoud Ahmadinejad to win. It didn’t do a very good job of doing so, and apparently didn’t anticipate any unrest following the election. These oversights gave the world an excellent glimpse of a brutal dictatorship in action.

Nobody much is defending Iran’s leaders. Conservatives, moderates and liberals are united in their disgust and anger over the brutality of Iran’s ruling class. But America’s newfound distaste for Iran raises some questions of consistency. For example, a year ago many liberals and moderates were saying that Iran was worth talking to, and that its ruling class are rational actors. And while Iran rates condemnatory 24/7 news coverage, other countries, countries that are every bit as dictatorial and brutal as Iran, are allowed to skate by without criticism.

When George W. Bush inserted Iran into his “axis of evil,” many, perhaps most, liberals were horrified. Some, perhaps rightly, pointed out that very publicly singling out three widely separated countries as “evil” might not be smart diplomacy. (And in hindsight, Bush was only able to deal with one of them; the one that was the least dangerous, and allowed the more dangerous two to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons). But most were outraged that Bush called Iran evil at all, at any time.

These critics thought that Iran, if not a Western style liberal democracy, was essentially a benign country. Matt Yglesias (who is a fairly mainstream liberal, far from the lunatic fringe) wrote blog posts suggesting that any attempts by Iran to appease the United States would be unwise, since the U.S. (this was during the Bush Administration) was run by neocons (with ties to AIPAC) who would be perfectly willing to attack Iran without provocation. Yglesias also penned a surreal post in which he said that Ahmadinejad had a “pretty sweet hipster style” (because he addressed the U.N. General Assembly tieless), and suggested that Bush might want to try some Iran-style diplomacy.

Yglesias is hardly the only liberal writer to have been so ridiculously easy on Iran—such attitudes were the rule rather than the exception on the Left until the Iran elections made Iran persona non grata in the West. But when considering the Left’s angry denunciations of Iran (now, Yglesias goes so far as to compare Admadinejad to Sarah Palin), it should be remembered that until a few weeks ago, most on the Left were making excuses for the same brutal regime.

Everyone condemns Iran’s brutality. But it is far too often forgotten that in most of the world, such violence is the rule, not the exception. Most countries on Earth are dictatorships; few are democracies. But most Americans are content to shut their eyes to that fact, unless the occasional foreign PR disaster ensures that evidence of dictatorship is thrust in their faces.

China’s government, for instance, is far more evil than Iran’s. (China’s one child policy is just one example). But it also has the capacity (achieved by using what often amounts to slave labor) to manufacture goods cheaply and efficiently. So Americans ignore China’s abysmal human rights record, and happily consume Chinese products.

Or take Cuba. Fidel Castro has ruled that country with an iron first for a half century. But he is admired by many on the Left, apparently for no other reason than that he looked cool forty years ago. Or take Saudi Arabia, whose human rights abuses are tolerated because it supplies U.S. demand for oil. Or Libya, whose human rights abuses are ignored because it is obscure and unimportant.

What is going on in Iran is the norm in most of the world. Those who live in the West forget that the rights they enjoy are very uncommon, and rarely found outside of Europe and America. They are the exception—in most places, dictatorship, corruption, and brutality are the norm.

Palin and the Media

2009-06-19T07:03:00.000-07:00

David Letterman’s comments about Sarah Palin’s daughter were undeniably in bad taste. Jokes about fourteen-year-old Willow Palin are clearly outside the pale, and even jokes about eighteen-year-old Bristol, while less offensive, still push the boundaries of taste and decency. While Bristol is of age, and something of a public figure (aside from her mother’s political involvement, she has given speeches and appeared on television), she does not court the spotlight, and hasn’t done anything newsworthy for quite some time.

Everyone knows about Letterman’s joke—that Willow, while in New York, would be propositioned by Eliot Spitzer and seduced by Alex Rodriguez. Letterman says that his intended target was Bristol, and I believe him, since the joke wouldn’t be funny unless it was.

And Palin responded angrily, accusing Letterman of joking about the statutory rape of her daughter and forcing him to apologize twice while leveling veiled accusations of pedophilia. Her outrage was understandable—whatever Letterman’s intentions, his joke ended up being about her young daughter.

Most people have made up their minds about whether Letterman’s joke was unconscionable (it was) and whether Palin’s response was excessive (it was). To me, the most interesting aspect of an overblown and generally unremarkable incident is the media’s attitude towards Palin concerning this incident.

Most would agree that Letterman’s joke was tasteless, and the Palin family was wronged. (Even most liberals seemed to agree with this view). And Palin’s response, if excessive, was at least understandable, given that she was the victimized party.

That wasn’t the media’s view. Palin’s response was worse than the original wrong itself, and served as more proof of her intellectual and moral failings. Andrew Sullivan said, essentially, that Palin had it coming for taking her family on the campaign trail. Keith Olbermann called Letterman “the victim” who “took the high road,” while Palin was “power crazed” and a “delusional lunatic.” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick allowed that Letterman’s comments were “stupid,” but claimed that Palin’s were “stupider.” All this because Sarah Palin was angered by a vicious and careless joke.

It’s become a conservative cliché to rhetorically wonder what would have happened had a conservative said what Letterman said about a family member of a Democrat. But that misses the point. Letterman would never have made that joke about the daughter of a Democrat. But he also wouldn’t have made the joke about the daughter of any other Republican.

Remember Jenna Bush? She was the target of some late night jokes a few years back, after being arrested for underage drinking and trying to use her grandmother’s ID to buy alcohol. (I wonder how she possibly thought using her grandmother’s ID would work). She came in for her share of jokes—but they stopped quickly, weren’t nearly as cruel or relentless as the jibes about Bristol Palin.

Sarah Palin is different from most Republican politicians. Most Republicans are tolerated by the media, and sometimes even admired (John McCain in 2000 is an example). But liberal media types fear Palin because they think she represents (in a way no other Republican does) the most superstitious, uneducated, and stupid portion of the American people—and they realize that she came very close to becoming the Vice President of the United States.

In the typical liberal mind, Sarah Palin in the Oval Office would be a bad dream come true, as bad as having Rush Limbaugh there. Palin represents liberalism’s worst nightmare: a very conservative politician who is also popular, at least among a niche of the population. They are afraid of the possibility that Palin could win the presidency in 2012, and usher in a new dark age of conservatism. Thus, the wild and hateful comments about Palin. The media doesn’t hate Palin—liberals are afraid of her.

ObamaCare's Fatal Flaw

2009-06-17T21:29:00.001-07:00

Reforming health care is next on Barack Obama’s agenda. Doing so will be difficult—any meaningful health care reform would be a massive project, and would be massively expense. And as Bill and Hillary Clinton found out, health care reform is a tricky thing—attempting to implement universal health care was a disaster that marred Clinton’s first term.

And health care is a very divisive issue, one that not only drives division between parties, but also within them. There have been significant disagreements about the proper health care plan among Democrats, and there is no cohesive outline for the overhaul even within that party. And, of course, Republicans are solidly opposed to any additional public health insurance.

There are many reasons Republicans oppose Obama’s plan. One is the cost—the original plan would have cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and while lawmakers are trying to get the cost under a trillion, the price will still be very great. Others oppose the bill for ideological reasons—they believe that the state should minimize its involvement in private life, and government run healthcare would be a too-big intrusion into the private sector.

Another reason to oppose government run healthcare is that it is unnecessary. America is the only developed country in the world without universal health care. Yet American life expectancy is only slightly lower than countries with universal health care. That stat is more impressive when you consider how poor American health habits are—most Americans are overweight (about two thirds), and many smoke (about a quarter) or take drugs. And still, American life expectancy does not differ in any significant way from health rates in other developed countries.

And, of course, even if government run health care was everything its supporters claimed it was, it has drawbacks. If the free market doesn’t run the health care system, then there will be some form of rationing—some treatments will be harder to find, or have longer wait times, than others, regardless of the patients ability to pay.

All those are compelling reasons to oppose government run health care. But there is another reason to stand against it. Assume that Obama’s plan works—it reduces health care costs, it cuts down on insurance premiums, and improves general health and life expectancy. It would still be a bad idea. Because it would only be as strong as the federal government’s balance sheet.

Take Social Security. It’s worked pretty well for a government program—people put in their money, and get it back when they retire. It depends on some dubious assumptions (the largest such assumption being the idea that there will always be more workers entering the workforce than leaving it), but so far there have been no major problems with it. In fact, for a government program, it has run pretty smoothly.

The problem is, it’s not substainable. Experts estimate the Social Security will run out of money around 2040—about thirty years from now. Presumably, the federal government will take some measures to stave off the collapse, but whatever happens there will probably be a great many people who will have to expensively reconsider their retirement plans.

It is much the same situation with Medicare, except the doomsday date is around 2020. Congress is already trying to figure how much of Medicare it can cut, which should probably worry some of those dependant on it.

Supporters of government run health care should consider these cases. If the government is responsible for health care, what happens when the government can’t provide it? The situation would be far worse than before the government stepped in.

Right now, the U.S. nation debt is over 10 trillion dollars. The deficit for this year alone is over one trillion. The U.S. is in danger of losing its AAA credit rating. Given the fact that the federal government can’t pay off the obligations it has, is it wise to saddle it with more of them?

Do Republicans Need to Change?

2009-06-16T21:28:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing that all political observers agree about, it is that if the Republican party is to survive, it must change a great deal. The platform that George Bush ran on, and the ideals of his Republican party, are dead. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans must run on a whole new set of principles, updating and adapting for the 21st century.

The amount the change the party needs is up for debate. Some, such as David Frum, Meghan McCain, and Christopher Buckley, think that the party needs to adapt and try to appeal to younger, more environmentally conscious, more socially liberal voters. These figures don’t get much attention from actual Republicans, but do serve as useful quotes sources for journalists doing pieces about why the GOP must change.

Others, such as Patrick Ruffini, Ross Douthat, and Soren Dayton, think the basic message is good, but the packaging is weak and outdated. For example, Douthat believes that social conservatives’ focus on abortion and gay marriage is limiting and impractical, and does nothing to address the larger issues such as the breakdown of the family. Ruffini points out that the Democrats have a considerable technological edge over the Republicans, and says that Republicans should start networking via blogs and using applications such as Twitter. The attitude of this group can be summed up by a Douthat quote “Reagan was right for his time, but now it’s a different time.” Douthat, Ruffini, and like minded people believe that Republicans should shift their focus to issues such as immigration, energy, and the environment.

There is, to be sure, some truth to both points of view. However, I believe both are wrong. Reagan ran on low taxes and spending, less government involvement in the private sector, a strong military, and an opposition to abortion (and now, gay marriage). Bush ran on much the same issues, with the addition of “compassionate conservatism.” (Basically, the welfare that Republicans deem acceptable). There is no reason to assume that these issues are less effective now than when Reagan used them.

The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Social Security and Medicare (the two biggest government intrusions into the private sector) are on the verge of bankruptcy. The national debt is out of control, and probably unpayable.

All these are extremely important issues—and ones that play to traditional Republican strengths. And as Obama expands the government, that growth will give Republicans even more material for attacks.

Many of the reformers see Republican opposition to abortion and gay marriage as real weaknesses, especially with young voters. I have never been able to understand, given that pro-life evangelicals and conservative Catholics form much of the GOP base, why so many believe that Republicans would be better off dropping their opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

True, the Republican stand on those issues probably drives off young voters. But even if the GOP were more socially liberal, are there that many young voters who favor an aggressive military and small government, but draw the line at supporting a party that takes a conservative stand on social issues?

The one area where relatively few conservatives seem to see the need for change is foreign policy. That is odd, considering that most of former president Bush’s unpopularity rose from his handling of the Iraq War. If there is one issue that presents a legitimate weak point for Republicans, it is foreign policy.

Those Republicans who think the party needs to change its focus don’t seem to have considered what sort of voter they actually want. They seem to want voters concerned with gay rights, the environment, energy policy, and immigration. There is a name for that kind of voter: a Democrat. Given that Republicans tend to oppose gay marriage, environmental regulations, alternate energies, and immigration, there really isn’t much room to make these issues the Republicans’ own, at least not without alienating virtually the entire base. And while many Republicans probably wouldn’t mind doing so, that base also happens to be the ones who vote in Republican primaries.

I predict that the next Republican president—whether he is elected in 2012, 2016, or 2020—will run on a platform very similar to that of George W. Bush. Those issues just work—and will as long as Americans groan about taxes, or care to win wars, or worry about the morality of abortion.

Not that winning on Bush’s issues is altogether a good thing. Bush did run on compassionate conservatism, after all, which most conservatives agree wasn’t a very good idea. Republican opposition to gay marriage disturbs me a little, given how unimportant it is compared to other, more pressing issues. And taxes are about as low as they can get, considering the amount of spending by the federal government.

But good for the country or not, traditional Republican issues work. (And the frontrunners for 2012 seem to agree—Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney are all pretty traditional Republicans). These issues have worked in the past—and will probably work in the future.

Extremism In America

2009-06-11T22:39:00.000-07:00

By now, everyone has heard of the white supremist and anti-Semite who went on a shooting spree in the Holocaust Museum, killing one guard and injuring another visitor.

The attack was horrible, and served as a reminder of the need for a reminder of the Holocaust, and of the fact that anti-Semitism is still an issue today. The shooter was a man called James W. von Brunn, an eighty-eight year old white supremist who was convinced that Bush was behind 9/11 and that Obama is a puppet of the Jews. Von Brunn felt the proper response to these facts was violence.

He’s pretty alone in that line of thought. A white supremist group condemned his actions, saying that “the responsible white separatist community condemns this. It makes us look bad.” (Actually, I wasn’t aware that there was a responsible white separatist community, nor that it was possible to make it look any worse). Conservatives were horrified at the blatant and violent anti-Semitism, while liberals alternated between expressing horror and trying to tie the attacks to conservatives. (Because the party that essentially thinks Israel can do no wrong is filled with anti-Semites).

One thing that virtually everyone agrees on is that von Brunn acted more or less alone; that virtually no one actually agrees with him, and such extremism is limited to a few eccentric loners. Most of us in the Western world feel that extremism just isn’t done anymore, that the extremists out there either belong to a different culture (Islam), or a small, creepy cult, or in their basement furiously posting stuff on their favorite forum. But extremism, of any kind, isn’t something that more than a few people could get in to. Most people believe that extremism exists only as an eccentricity, but rarely or never as a movement, at least not in the Western world.

They could be wrong, and in fact I think they are. Scary, extremist movements aren’t nice to think about—they summon up images of Nazi Germany and racist mobs—but they exist. And while predicting the future is difficult, and foolish, I think there is reason to believe they could grow.

Case in point: England. The United Kingdom is very liberal compared to the U.S.—accepted political figures in America like Jim DeMint or Bobby Jindal would be off the political map there. Britain looks down on America as a backwards, conservative country dominated by reactionaries.

So guess which country saw a racist, white supremist party make significant gains in their recent elections?

The British National Party (BNP) is more or less unapologetically fascist—its domestic policies are fairly similar to the British Labour Party, with the caveats that the BNP favors discrimination against gays, immigrants, and blacks. It’s a nasty, unnecessary party. It also won over six percent of the vote in Britain’s recent elections.

There were reasons for that—turnout was low, and many Britons are disgusted over recent expenses scandals in their government. But then, that sort of thing isn’t exactly unprecedented. If all it takes to give an extremist party power is corrupt politicians and low turnout, then the United States is ready for an extremist takeover right now.

That’s hyperbole, maybe, but it’s not as insane as one might think. In America today, both sides see the other as a rational person might see a party like the BNP—as immoral, over-the-edge extremists. Conservatives see themselves as a beleaguered, silent majority, with their rights trampled on by elites in the government and the media. Liberals see conservatives as evil, backwards monsters willing to stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

Both sides try to paint the other as extremists, but the liberal movement takes this demonization the farthest. Take David Letterman’s joke about Bristol Palin getting knocked up at a Mets game, or Leonard Zesnick’s assertion that Sean Hannity gives white supremists “rational justification,” or HuffPo writer Michael Rowe’s (wholly false) claim that Sarah Palin supporters waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys at her rallies. These comments are supposed to be taken seriously, yet are total nonsense (or deeply offensive, in Letterman’s case). Yet many people believe them.

You can find similar, though generally not as egregious, comments on the conservative side as well. And this sort of attitude paints the other side as wholly alien and other, and paints the “right” side as the only legitimate ideology. This sort of attitude distorts the middle. For example, Rush Limbaugh and Barack Obama are fine as examples of the right and left in American politics, respectively. But I wouldn’t like to live in an America where either represented the center—in such an America, people like Michael Savage or Michael Moore would represent legitimate viewpoints. And that is not a good thing.

Our current polarization is somewhat inevitable, and neither side really bears the blame for it. Given the wide gap between left and right in this country, reducing the animosity between the two sides is a difficult task. Failing to do so won’t necessarily result in a growth of extremism. But it will give extremism a better chance to thrive.

Conservatives And Hollywood

2009-06-09T21:35:00.000-07:00

Generally, conservatives disapprove of Hollywood, or at least of Hollywood’s liberal values. With good reason, too—it’s common knowledge that prevailing Hollywood values skew heavily liberal, and that conservative beliefs are often demonized and mocked.

For myself, Hollywood’s lack of originality annoys me more than its liberalism—does every movie have to be a reboot of some Eighties franchise? (Star Trek, X-Men, Terminator, Transformers, Watchmen, etc). I would gladly put up with a liberal Hollywood if it were also an inventive, clever Hollywood. But it isn’t, and Hollywood’s liberal bias is evident, and it annoys me.

I don’t know why conservatives can’t seem to infiltrate Hollywood, though I suspect that the reason, whatever it is, is the same as the reason they can’t seem to do much in the mainstream media. Discrimination against conservatives (mostly unconscious, probably, but still discrimination) might play a role, but almost certainly not a major one. And it’s possible that more creative people might also tend to be more naïve and idealistic, making them more sympathetic to liberal views.

And, of course, there is the fact that hard-headed capitalists and enthusiastic soldiers don’t always make for the most sympathetic heroes. A reluctant hero going up against The Man is seen as more exciting than, say, the inner workings of a massive corporation.

Hollywood’s liberal bias is, obviously, not good for conservatives. But there are things conservatives can do to make things in that area better. Two the most obvious are to grow up and man up.

First, conservatives should grow up. It’s possible that they would be more respected (if only marginally more so) if their taste in movies were a bit better. This year, National Review released a list of the Top Twenty-Five Conservative Movies. Number five on the list (and bear in mind, this list only covered movie released after about 1984) was 300, because it is a film about “martial honor, unflinching courage, and the oft-ignored truth that freedom isn’t free.” Translation: a lot of bad guys get killed.

(Although I haven’t watched 300, I am familiar with the basic premise, which is that buff guys in bikinis thrust long, hard objects into other men. Does anyone else see any Freudian overtones there?)

Red Dawn (lots of Communists get killed) and Heartbreak Ridge (ditto) are fifteen and twenty-one, respectively. The conservative message of these three films is that killing bad guys is a great idea. And while that premise isn’t something I would disagree with, are these movies (none of which are considered particularly good by most critics) the best way to get this message across? Conservatives hated anti-war movies like Rendition and In the Valley of Elah (both of which bombed). But compared to, say, Red Dawn, the message in Hollywood’s recent anti-war movies was subtle and understated. It’s okay, even desirable, for conservatives to want to celebrate Americans at war through film. But couldn’t they at least pick good films with which to do so?

The rest of National Review’s list was pretty predictable. The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, Braveheart, The Chronicles of Narnia, and We Were Soldiers are films in the Red Dawn/300 category of “war can be good.” Forrest Gump, Ghostbusters, and The Pursuit of Happyness all celebrate small government. The Incredibles and Juno celebrate social conservatism. Somehow, South Park: Team America got onto the list, in the “bashing celebs who bash America” category. 24 isn’t a movie, but God knows conservatives praise it enough, seemingly because of Jack Bauer’s willingness to torture terrorists.

Most of these movies are good, but hardly great films. (The Lord of the Rings probably is a great film, as are Forrest Gump and Groundhog Day). But quality of moviemaking aside, what is striking about these movies is the flimsiness of the conservatism in them. Ghostbusters is on the list only because an comical EPA official releases ghosts on New York. Juno’s pro-life message is tenuous at best. Most of the other movies have similarly flimsy conservative messages.

Can’t conservatives find any better movies to represent their beliefs? Few of the movies here really raise any difficult questions, or provoke much thought. No Country for Old Men examined the essential character of man. Crash looked at racial relations in America. Million Dollar Baby tried to find what love really is. A Beautiful Mind explored insanity and genius. Any of those are good, serious films; films that conservatives can watch. And I picked those just out of Best Picture winners from the last decade. Conservatives, apparently, can’t be bothered to watch those movies—they’d rather watch Red Dawn again.

(Am I being unfair to conservatives here? Maybe a little, since liberals aren’t much more discriminating with their films, and there were some serious films on NR’s list. Still, conservatives will probably find it hard to be taken seriously in Hollywood as long as 300 and an American Carol rank up there in their favorite movies).

Granted, liking better movies isn’t a sure way for conservatives to become more accepted in Hollywood. In fact, there are conservatives in Hollywood, some of whom are quite respected in the industry (at least according to what they write in conservative publications). But no one knows who they are.

Apparently, being openly conservative in Hollywood is bad for one’s career. It’s the ultimate in political uncorrectness there, and few are brave enough to face the criticism. Therefore, Hollywood conservatives tend to remain closeted, and only share their beliefs with close friends.

They shouldn’t. It’s going to be hard for conservatives do much of anything to change Hollywood’s politics if they insist on remaining closeted. Will being openly conservative hurt their careers? Maybe. But if they feel strongly about being censored, they should speak out and let their voices be heard.

If Hollywood conservatives feel that doing so would simply hurt their careers too much, fine, that’s acceptable. But they should shut up about anti-conservative blacklists and witchhunts. In my mind, if you aren’t willing to do something about a problem, you lose the right to complain about it. Conservatives in Hollywood should either put up or shut up.

What Islam Is, and Isn't

2009-06-05T21:49:00.000-07:00

I thought Obama’s Islam speech was pretty good, as are most of his speeches. True, there wasn’t a lot of content there, but those types of speeches rarely have much in the way of substantive policy. The goal of this speech was to tell Islamic nations that the United States is not their enemy, and I think Obama succeeded.

One line in his speech stood out. Obama said “my experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.” That’s very true—America should know what it is dealing with. It’s also something Obama ignored throughout his speech. In reality, Islam is significantly different from the version present in Obama’s speech.

Obama explained that he knew “civilization’s debt to Islam.” Islam has contributed its share to the West, and the Muslim world was a great center of science at one time, but really, modern civilization doesn’t owe very much at all to Islam. Our modern culture evolved from the Middle Ages and feudalism through the Renaissance and Enlightenment down to the present day. The primary influence during the Middle Ages was Christianity, the primary influences on the Renaissance were ancient Greece and Rome (that’s why they call it the Renaissance; “Renaissance” means “rebirth”), and reason and science were the basis for the Enlightenment.

Islam has made contributions to civilization—most obviously, they call our numbers “Arabic” numerals for a reason. But a glance at the modern word doesn’t really show much in the way of Islamic influence, and the Muslim influence there was essentially died out five hundred years ago.

Obama also made the claim that “America is not at war with Islam.” Let’s face it—it is, or at least Islam is at war with America. Take a look at a map of the Middle East, which is where the vast majority of Muslim countries are. (Two non-Middle East Muslim countries are Indonesia and Albania, neither of which are particularly unfriendly towards America.) The countries that make up the Middle East are: Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Palestine (defined as those states that are independent of Israel but not controlled by another country). Of those, seven (Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Qatar, and Turkey) can be considered friendly towards the United States. The other eight—which include most of the powerful states in the region (the friendly nations, with the exceptions of Pakistan and Turkey, are almost powerless in the region) either have governments that are openly hostile to the United States and Israel or have significant anti-American sentiment among their population.

The most influential Muslim in the world is probably Osama bin Laden. The second is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both are anti-American. The most powerful Islamic countries are probably Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan. Iran is an American enemy, Egypt is neutral but certainly no friend, and Pakistan, while an ally, is at the brink of collapse.

Not all Muslims hate America. But the ones that matter do. Moderate Muslims exist—but they don’t speak out. The men (and it’s only men) who have influence in Muslim countries are anti-America and anti-Israel. If the majority of Muslims do not in fact hate America (and it is very possible that this is the case), then they are a very silent majority. Islamic power, and the most vocal of the Muslim intelligentsia, are solidly against America.

Should Obama have included all this information in his speech? Of course not—it would be stupid to offend the people he is trying to attract. But he should realize what Islam is, and what it is not, and react accordingly.

Obama’s path to popularity in American and Europe has been very easy. But his philosophy may be much less popular in Muslim countries, and he should not count on his charm and biography to carry him through there.

Sotomayor In Context

2009-06-03T21:00:00.000-07:00

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor said that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” That statement has become one of the centerpieces of the campaign against Sotomayor, with her detractors (Rush Limbaugh being the loudest) accusing her of racism based on this statement. Sotomayor’s defenders claim that Sotomayor was guilty merely of expressing herself poorly.

That explanation really doesn’t work, given that Sotomayor uttered those words in a prepared speech at a UC Berkley event, and the transcript of the speech was published in a law journal. So these weren’t exactly off-the-cuff, impulsive remarks—Sotomayor said exactly what she intended to say. Her words can be taken at face value.

Taking these remarks at face value, many conclude that Sotomayor is a racist, or at least capable of racist remarks. I’m not sure how valid the “racist” accusation is—can you really judge someone’s racial attitudes on the strength of one comment?

According to the American media, you can, and liberals trying to smear conservatives as racist always have one (or two, if they do a lot of research) out-of-context quote that proves beyond all doubt that the conservative in question is a barely closeted racist.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, so we’ll go along with this theory and assume that Sotomayor’s 2001 comments are enough to make a definite judgment about her racial attitudes.

First, the context in which the speech was made is important. Sotomayor made the speech at an event called “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” Given her audience, it is possible that Sotomayor just wanted to say something nice about Latinos (and Latinas), and threw in something that possibly wasn’t strictly logical but sounded nice. (In fairness, had a Catholic judge said a similar comment about Catholic judges, something along the lines of “our Catholic faith gives us greater perspective from the bench,” I doubt there would be as great a furor over his or her comments).

In addition, this wasn’t Sotomayor’s best speech ever. In it, her audience learned that the year was 2002 (the speech was given in 2001), that Sotomayor apparently doesn’t realize that “woman” isn’t an adjective, and that women are an ethic minority.

Language issues aside, the point of Sotomayor’s speech was that while absolute impartiality among judges is the ideal, the reality is that all judges will find their personal experiences and beliefs inevitably color their decisions. Among Latinos, this bias should be used constructively to bring a different perspective to the mostly white world of the law.

(This point was a little confusing. Sotomayor said she was working towards “transcend[ing] [her] personal sympathies and prejudices,” but also wondered “whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” I think there is a contradiction there, and if Sotomayor reconciled that discrepancy, I missed it).

This led up to Sotomayor’s now infamous comment: “Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” (I quoted this at length to provide context).

At first glance, these words look pretty damning. After all, Sotomayor appears to be saying that Latina women (isn’t that a redundancy?), by virtue of their race, pretty much come with interesting experiences that “white males” don’t have. And if she had indeed been saying that, her statement would have been racist.

However, a look at her whole speech reveals a little more context. The only Latina Sotomayor talked about at any length was herself, and a great part of those comments involved her Latina heritage and upbringing. The only white males she talked about (at least as white males) were Supreme Court justices, particularly those during the civil rights era.

So, if by the “wise Latina”, Sotomayor meant herself, and by “white males” she meant twentieth century Supreme Court justices, her statement begins to make more sense. If one’s experiences do indeed make one a better judge (as Sotomayor believes), then growing up a racial minority in a ghetto would help one make better decisions than someone who has led a bland, ordinary life. That interpretation—and I believe it is the correct one—makes Sotomayor’s remarks much less offensive.

Maybe Sonia Sotomayor’s speech wasn’t racist, but it certainly wasn’t very good. Her “wise Latina” comment, though benign, was incredibly poorly phrased. And her overall line of reasoning is pretty flawed too—if judges are not to have sympathies and prejudices on the bench, perhaps Sotomayor should have talked about the best way to transcend her prejudices. (She might want to consider looking into the principle of charity). Sonia Sotomayor’s speech wasn’t racist—but it was poorly phrased and confusing, and endorsed a flawed argument.

What the Tiller Assassination Means

2009-06-01T21:47:00.000-07:00

I was saddened and appalled, though not really shocked, over the news about the murder of noted abortionist George Tiller. Tiller was one of my least favorite people, and his work providing late term abortions was truly evil, though no worse than any other abortionist. However, slaughtering those who disagree with us on moral issues is both wrong and ineffective, and I, like all pro-lifers, condemn the murder and the man who committed it.

Some wonder why, if abortion is truly murder, it is not moral to kill as many abortionists as possible in order to reduce the number of abortions. (It is mostly, in fact almost exclusively, pro-choicers who pose this question). It is possible that Tiller’s murderer used that reasoning—Tiller was one of few abortionists who did late term abortions, so many of his potential clients will have nowhere else to go for abortions. Pro-lifers condemn the murder of George Tiller—but why, if it prevented murder?

There are, I think, two reasons such actions are wrong. The first is the ineffectiveness of such killings—any drop in the number of abortions as a result of Tiller’s death will probably be more than offset by the ill-will garnered by the pro-life movement as a result of the killing. Assassinations, as Brutus, Booth, and Čabrinović, found out, don’t usually work the way they are intended to.

The second reason is that we live in a democracy, and unless people consent to be governed by the laws made by the majority, democracy is meaningless. If the proper response to disagreement is violence, then democracy is undermined. Everyone owes allegiance to the state and to society, provided that society is just.

If the society is just, of course, rebellion may be a just and moral thing to do—those Germans who conspired against Hitler during World War II were probably justified in doing so. But I think it is hard to argue that contemporary American society is so unjust as to be illegitimate, and violence in this situation is quite wrong. An analogous situation is that of blacks during the forties, fifties, and sixties. The racial prejudice they faced was wrong—but the proper response was not murder. Had Martin Luther King used bullets instead of words, he would be remembered today as the same sort of monster as Scott Roeder, George Tiller’s murderer.

Pro-lifers who commit violence are in the wrong. Every pro-lifer realizes that. But the reaction of much of the media intentionally ignores this fact, and much of the analysis of this crime amounts to what is really nothing more than a smear job against those whom oppose abortion.

Pro-lifers have been protesting Tiller for years. Bill O’Reilly (who, by the way, isn’t pro-life—he supports abortion rights) has devoted a great many shows towards exposing Tiller. The idea is that all that protesting and exposing inspired Roeder to do what he did, making the pro-life movement partially responsible for Tiller’s murder.

This charge is slander, and honestly I cannot see how anyone could make it in good faith. No movement can be held accountable for the actions of everyone who shares its goals, and the pro-life movement is no exception. Roeder is a nut with a history of potential violence (he has been arrested before for having bomb materials in his car), and had little movement (aside from the odd blog comment) with the pro-life movement. Every pro-life group condemns, and has always condemned, violence, and Roeder acted without any encouragement from any pro-life group.

It is not only pro-life extremists who spread violence. Ecoterrorism is relatively common, and anti-war protesters are notorious for vandalism. Monday, a man shot and killed an army recruiter—he was a convert to Islam and his motive was almost certainly dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy, something that most liberals share. Are mainstream, anti-war liberals to be held accountable for the actions of this man?

Of course not, since they have always condemned such violence. Pro-lifers have always condemned such violence too, and bear no responsibility for the death of George Tiller.

Obama's Foreign Policy

2009-05-30T08:53:00.000-07:00

Maybe all the economic news is distracting, but I find it incredible that so many people seem to have forgotten all about the War on Terror. Obama didn’t really run on a strong foreign policy, but he did promise to end the Iraq War, and to talk to our enemies. The talking would be without preconditions, of course, and while that strategy might have its weak points it would have been an interesting change from the Bush policy of alternately completely flattening (Iraq) our enemies and blithely ignoring them (Iran).

But Obama hasn’t done any of that. North Korea seems to have nuclear missiles, and is engaging in some pretty provocative saber rattling. Iran is continuing its quest for nuclear weapons, and Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t behaving either.

Yet Obama hasn’t met with any of them. Okay, he hasn’t been president for very long, but given the gravity of the Iran and (especially) North Korean situations, some preliminary discussions towards that goal might be in order. Instead, Obama is containing Bush’s post-Iraq foreign policy—ignore the problem and hope that it will go away.

The problem with that strategy is that Bush, for all his flaws, had one thing Obama lacks—credibility. He was willing to invade Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there—it was a pretty good bet that if Iran or North Korea went too far, he would stop them (or in Iran’s case, let Israel stop them).

Obama doesn’t have that sort of credibility. Lacking that kind of “nuke-em-if-they-can’t-take-a-joke” diplomatic credibility isn’t necessarily a bad thing—Eisenhower, for example, got mostly good foreign policy results without being too aggressive.

But Obama doesn’t have either sort of diplomatic credibility. He emphasizes his understanding of other countries, which isn’t altogether bad (though his constant apologies for America’s past are). But there has to be at least the threat of force behind Obama’s understanding exterior. And there isn’t.

Iran, if left unchecked, will probably get a nuclear weapon this year. North Korea already (probably) has one, and it is possible (though not, right now, very probable) that it could invade South Korea, or at least very convincingly threaten to do so.

Obama will have to handle those situations somehow, and the threat of force will have to be involved. Obama will have to make such a threat believable. If he can do so while talking to our enemies, well and good—but he will have to do so some way.

One of Obama’s central campaign promises, especially at the beginning of his campaign, was his pledge to quickly wind down the Iraq War.

As the campaign went on, though, Bush finally got his act together and transformed Iraq from a total hellhole to a state approaching order. This took Iraq off the front pages, and unfortunately everyone pretty much forgot about it.

Now, Obama’s plan for Iraq is pretty much identical to Bush’s—have troops start leaving around 2010, and essentially keep a permanent presence there.

Given the Iran situation, having 120,000 troops stationed right next door might not be a bad idea. On the other hand, we are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars over there, and American soldiers are still being killed, and Iraq is on a somewhat stable footing, which means it might be a good idea to speed the withdrawal up just a tad.

And the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, though most Americans took that war off their radar screens years ago.

Iran and North Korea are dangerous threats, and there are other, less obvious dangers out there as well. Yet very few Americans seem very worried. That is reminiscent of another time in the recent past in which few Americans worried overmuch about foreign policy. As a result of that attitude, 3,000 Americans died. I hope that history doesn’t repeat itself—but I’m afraid it will.

A Few Thoughts About Racism

2009-05-28T19:35:00.000-07:00

Racism is second only to pedophilia in the catalogue of socially unacceptable sins, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s obviously wrong, and unnecessary (can a sin be necessary for society? I would argue yes—abortion is necessary for modern society as we know it), and anti-intellectual. Given the gravity of this crime, it’s not surprising that people love to throw around accusations of racism, since being convicted of racism in the court of public opinion can destroy credibility and careers.

Sadly, a lot of people forget (or never knew) what racism really is; they just equate “racist” with “bad person.” The actual dictionary definition defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” Presumably, “superior” and “inferior” refers to moral superiority or inferiority; that people of one race are worth more than a person of another race.

Using this definition, many, perhaps most, accusations of racism can be debunked. One example is the case of the Golf Channel anchor who said that the only way Tiger Woods could be beaten is if his competitors “lynched him in a dark alley.” That comment, while arguably in poor taste, certainly wasn’t racist according to the dictionary definition. (Trent Lott’s Strom Thurmond comments, while also in bad taste, aren’t really racist either).

However, most accusations of racism aren’t like the ones above. Rather, both sides of the political aisle accuse the other of institutional racism. Liberals accuse conservatives of subtle racism evidenced by their opposition to social programs designed to help blacks and other racial minorities. Conservatives accuse liberals of reverse racism—of preferring minorities to whites in retaliation for white bigotry from the past.

The first accusation is easily the most common—it is a central liberal belief that the Republican party’s success is dependant upon pandering to racists. They point to Nixon’s Southern Strategy as evidence of this, ignoring the fact that that strategy attempted to woo voters whom were angry with the Democratic party’s positions on the Vietnam War and social issues, not race. (Of course, many of those voters were angry about the Democrat position on race too, but unfortunately for them Nixon was pretty progressive on race). The Southern Strategy was based on disgust with “amnesty, acid, and abortion,” not integration.

The accusation that conservatives’ opposition to social programs shows that they don’t much care for the problems of black people is also mostly flawed. There is actually a grain of truth to that, I think—blacks seldom vote Republican, so few Republican lawmakers really worry about the problems of that constituency.

But most conservative opposition to social programs arises from libertarian philosophy, which holds that the less government involvement, the better. And the truth of that philosophy has been borne out by the effectiveness of such social programs over time—since the Great Society transformed America into a welfare state, the lot of the poorest people (disproportionately black) has improved little, if at all.

On this issue, conservatives aren’t being racists—they are being realists. Social programs don’t (or at least haven’t) work—and conservatives realize that.

As for the accusation that liberals are reverse racists, there is a grain of truth in that accusation as well. There are some liberals who think that all whites are indelibly stained by their culture’s past racial sins, and are therefore inferior to other, less wicked races. This, of course, is as racist as anything the Ku Klux Klan believes.

However, there aren’t many liberals who think that way. The most common rationale for affirmative action is the idea that generations of racial discrimination have set the black community so far behind the mainstream culture that minorities need some sort of help to succeed. This idea isn’t altogether false—it is undeniable that decades of discrimination haven’t done much for black society—but it ignores that facts that a) giving blacks access to positions they aren’t qualified for won’t help them in the long run, and b) it is unjust to those who do deserve the position. The son shouldn’t suffer for the sins of the father.

However, unjust as affirmative action may be, it is merely racial prejudice, not racism.

Even if neither the right nor the left goes in for racism, that is not to say that our society is free from racism. There is, sadly, a great deal of racism in the black community, where acting “white” is an ultimate insult. And the white world is not as free of racism as it thinks it is—few whites know many blacks, and it is difficult to succeed as a minority in the white world. Overt racism is dead—but mistrust and distain between black and white lives on.

The Sotomayor Nomination

2009-05-27T05:47:00.000-07:00

President Obama announcing his pick for David Souter’s Supreme Court seat today, choosing Sonia Sotomayor for the position. His choice was predictable—Sotomayor was known to be one of the finalists for the job—and the reaction on both sides to the choice was pretty unsurprising as well, as liberals tended to be happy, or at least content, with the pick, while few conservatives saw the Sotomayor pick as a good one.

Sotomayor is a safe pick for Obama—the White House compares her with David Souter, and while few consider Souter a really great justice, he was hardly a major voice on the Court. While Republicans won’t be happy with Sotomayor, they probably won’t (and can’t) go to any great lengths to block her nomination.

Even if Republicans aren’t willing or able to block Sotomayor, she still isn’t a very good pick. She is clearly a liberal judicial activist—she is on record saying that the Court of Appeals is “where policy is made.” According the New Republic’s Jeffery Rosen, her opinions, while decent, are hardly impressive, and she is considered (by some) to be obnoxious on the bench. Some of her decisions don’t look very good in retrospect—in a case involving white firefighters passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified black ones, Sotomayor issued a one paragraph statement that upheld the original decision and ignored any points made by the plaintiffs. (The case is now on its way to the Supreme Court).

Sotomayor’s views on race are another liability—her views come very close to being racist (or since they display a bias against whites, reverse racist). She has said that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,” which implies that white males can’t have rich experiences as well.

So, Sona Sotomayor is a very liberal judicial activist. Should Republicans fight her nomination? Those who favor opposing the nomination point to her many gaffes as opportunities to damage Obama’s reputation for good judgment, and possibly (with a lot of luck) force Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination, a la Harriet Myers.

On the other hand, others point out that Republicans don’t have the votes to vote the nomination down, and attacking the first Hispanic female nominated to the court could hurt Republicans among Hispanic voters.

I find the last theory unconvincing—if Republicans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, which they will for the foreseeable future, they will already have lost most of that portion of the Hispanic vote likely to be angry over their opposition to a Hispanic justice. Some observers think that Sotomayor was picked partially because Obama reasoned that Republicans would be wary of attacking a Hispanic. If so, he shouldn’t have worried, since Republicans would have a difficult time turning the Hispanic community against them any more than it already is.

There are, however, other considerations besides the Hispanic vote. Sotomayor is, at least from a conservative standpoint, an unqualified judge, and Republicans should take care to emphasize this. She should not be given a free pass; Republicans should underline her shortcomings.

However, it would only be counterproductive to expend too much political capital on opposing Sona Sotomayor. Whether or not one agrees with her judicial philosophy, she is an experienced jurist with lots of experience. While she will probably never be a major player on the Court, she will (unlike Harriet Myers) probably not be an embarrassment.

And even if Republicans wanted to oppose her, they don’t have a practical way to do so. By the time the nomination comes to a vote, the Democrats will almost certainly have sixty Senate seats, making a filibuster impossible. Trying to block the nomination would be impossible, and embarrassing in its futility.

If there is any bright side to the Sotomayor nomination, it is this: she just doesn’t seem very smart, at least not for a Supreme Court justice. Her decisions aren’t particularly good, she has a tendency to stupid things, and her personal life is more than a little eccentric—she has no family, so she bonds with her law clerks, hosting card games and movie nights, which seems like something out of The Office.

Barring something unforeseen, Sotomayor will be on the Supreme Court this time next year. Her selection is bad news for conservatives—but probably as good as they could hope for given the president and congress.

What's Going On Here

2009-05-21T21:19:00.001-07:00

If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed some changes here over the past six weeks or so. I’m not posting as regularly as I did—I’m around 2-3 posts per week now, down from a good five a week in the past. So my posts, which were never very numerous compared to other blogs, are getting rarer.

There are a few reasons for that. One is that while I enjoy writing, writing about politics constantly is getting a little old. After the tenth post comparing the efficiency of the American and European model health care systems, you start to feel like you’ve just about exhausted the subject. And while every day, Obama gives conservatives something new to complain about, it’s basically the same complaint every day. Obama gave a big speech about terrorism today (well, yesterday; it’s after midnight now)—and while I’m not writing about it (at least right now), I bet you can more or less tell what I’m going to say.

That’s not to say that politics won’t ever become interesting to me again—it’s just that right now, what’s happening in Washington isn’t as interesting as other things I could write about.

Another reason for the decrease in posts is that I don’t get angry about politics anymore. I hope that I was never one of the angry bloggers, the sort who basically fill their posts with angry rants about the other side. But as I have learned more about politics, I have learned (at least, I think this is a valid conclusion) that there are some people who, while they are liars espousing absurd theories, are nonetheless talented communicators who will draw large followers. I don’t like seeing that sort of thing, but I feel that getting angry about it is just counterproductive, since that is what that sort of person wants rational people to do. So when I hear that Michael Moore is releasing another film, this one about the financial crisis, I might cringe a bit, and hope that none of my friends see it so I don’t have to talk about it with them—but I don’t feel any anger or hate for Michael Moore.

Overall, I think that’s a good attitude, at least for me, but it does rob me of a certain impetus to get up and write.

All this stuff might seem a little over explanatory, but I wanted to give some sort of idea of what I’m feeling. Obviously, I’m going to make some changes to this blog. For the time being, those changes are probably going to be what you’ve been seeing—my typical posts, about 2-3 times a week. In the longer term future, I might go back up to four or five posts, or maybe start writing a more typical blog, with more, shorter posts and lots of links to other blogs. I’m not sure, but at this point I just wanted to give those still reading this blog some idea of what to expect.

Also, for those of you are reading this, thanks for taking the time to visit here. I know I rarely respond to comments (I must be the worst commenter in the world—my comments rarely rise above the level of “nice post” for some reason), but I do read them all, and appreciate the visits.

Dan Brown Vs. History

2009-05-20T21:06:00.000-07:00

Ross Douthat is one of my favorite columnists. He is one of the few conservative pundits who can envision a realistic template for a new Republican party that is more responsive to voters’ needs, while retaining its conservative principles. He is unapologetically and rationally pro-life, and orthodox member of the Catholic Church. He’s always a joy to read, and I was extremely happy to see that the New York Times had exhibited some rare good judgment and put him on its editorial page.

His latest column is interesting—it is unassailably correct, as far as it goes, but I can’t help but feel it is missing a part of a larger picture. The column examines the Dan Brown phenomenon, which has produced two monster bestsellers (The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons), and two hit movies.

Brown’s books are, apparently (I haven’t read them), thrillers that revolve around conspiracy theories, but you already knew that, given that almost everyone must have had some contact with the books. Brown acknowledges that his plots are fiction; the conspiracies, he maintains, are based on fact.

The theory in Angels and Demons involves the Illuminati, which in the Brownverse is apparently a secret organization dedicated to fighting religion (which is supposed to hate science) so that science can spread, although the real villain is an archconservative cardinal. The Da Vinci Code’s hook is the idea that Leonardo Da Vinci found out that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had a son, and that that knowledge is only revealed in a code based on Leonardo da Vinci’s works. Both ideas are wholly and obviously false, and no one with any taste or discrimination takes the books seriously. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of people who lack either, and both books have become huge bestsellers, meaning that millions of people are being few what amounts to anti-Catholic propaganda.

Douthat argues that Brown’s themes advocate a sort of do-it-yourself, nondemanding religion; the sort of spirituality practiced by those people who say that they’re spiritual, but not religious,” which is true. Douthat also argues that Brown’s books incite these kinds of beliefs, which is more debatable.

There are two sorts of people who read Brown’s books for their theology or history—people wishing for “comfort reading” in books that confirm what they already know (in much the same way especially hawkish conservatives watch Red Dawn for footage of Communists being massacred), and people who are intellectual lost causes who will believe anything they hear.

Brown isn’t driving either sort from traditional Christianity. The first kind would leave anyway—they boost Brown’s sales figures but in these cases he is simply preaching to the converted. The second sort would fall for conspiracy theories regardless of what Brown writes—if anything, if is fortunate that they fall for such easily and widely debunked ones.

Dan Brown’s works are indicators of American society’s attitudes towards religion—but they don’t shape it much. If they aren’t doing religion much good, they aren’t doing it very much in the way of real harm either. They attract only the already converted and the historically illiterate.

Brown’s books do as much or more damage, I think, to real history and art as they do religion. Of all the fascinating things to be found in the world of art, the Brown’s readers (and there are a lot of them) only learn about inane conspiracy theories.

And Brown’s writings are anti-intellectual as well—they ask readers to unquestioningly swallow ideas that ten minutes on Wikipedia would utterly debunk. The books are utterly irrational—yet Brown attempts to persuade his readers that the work done by legitimate historians is flawed, while the stuff dreamed up by conspiracy theorists is hard fact.

Dan Brown’s books might lead some people away from traditional Christianity—but they almost certainly lead many more away from legitimate history. The study of history might not be as important as the study of God—but it is still worth condemning Dan Brown’s abuses on this front.

Obama, Notre Dame, and Abortion

2009-05-18T21:13:00.000-07:00

A great many conservative Catholics were very upset about the fact that Barack Obama was asked to give the commencement address at Notre Dame’s graduation, and was given an honorary degree by the university. U.S. Catholic bishops have decreed that Catholic institutions should not honor anyone who supports abortion, and Obama is as pro-abortion as it is possible to be in American politics. A conservative friend summed up the feelings of many in his Facebook status—that he was going to boycott everything Notre Dame—alumni, sports, everything.

I’d consider a boycott too, but I don’t know anyone who goes there, and the only contact I have with the university’s sports teams is watching Notre Dame get crushed by USC every year. The fact that Notre Dame is a liberal institution, and one not altogether in step with Rome, is something that is pretty well known. The fact that Notre Dame invited Obama to give its commencement address, while symptomic of the university’s attitude towards Catholic teaching, is hardly unexpected nor especially revealing.

What are revealing are Obama’s remarks at the event, which are a perfect example of his movement’s inability to understand the other sides’ argument. Obama made two real points about abortion in his speech, a) that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, [and] it has both moral and spiritual dimensions,” and b) that when considering the abortion issue, it is important to reach for common ground.

Taking the first observation first, it might be worth noting that while the decision to have an abortion is no doubt “heart-wrenching,” the decision to have an abortion seems usually to be driven by economics. According to the website abortionno.org, over eighty-five percent of abortions are carried out on women making less than $60,000 a year, 80% are unmarried, and 52% are under the age of twenty-five. 93% of abortions are performed for social reasons, as opposed to rape or incest to for health considerations.

It would be a stretch to say that the decision to have an abortion is decided “casually,” but then, I think it also a stretch to say that all, or even most, women having abortions really consider the “moral and spiritual dimensions.” Given the statistics regarding the age, martial status, and income levels of most women who have abortions, it seems reasonable to infer that most abortions are the result of panic and the desperation that comes with the knowledge that one faces a nigh-impossible challenge. Morality tends to be pushed aside by such factors.

Obama’s second point is just stupid. He calls for finding middle ground, and working to together to resolve the abortion dilemma. But you can’t have a middle ground between two absolutes. Either abortion is, generally, permissible, or it is an awful crime. It isn’t both, and there is no real middle ground. Working together to prevent unplanned pregnancies is a worthy goal, and so is improving social conditions so that fewer women are faced with the challenge of raising a child without the handicaps of youth, illegitimacy, or poverty. The Democrats’ vision of an America of a nation where abortion is “safe, legal, and rare” is not acceptable from a pro-life standpoint, but it would be preferable to the one we have.

Such a situation would be better than the status quo—but abortion would still be, at least from a Catholic point of view, an intrinsically immoral act, and the fact that there were fewer of them performed would not make the crime of abortion any less great. It is this that Obama fails to understand.

Abortion, for those on both sides, is not a political issue, where compromise is necessary and admirable, but a moral one, with an objective answer. That answer differs with one’s moral beliefs—but both pro-life and pro-choice people believe there is one. Obama doesn’t understand this—and sadly, it seems those who run Notre Dame don’t either.

Talk Radio As Marketing

2009-05-14T21:02:00.000-07:00

After the Republican party’s election embarrassment, there has been a dispute over the coming direction of the party. At present, talk radio in general, and Rush Limbaugh in particular, wields most of the power in what is left of the conservative movement. But many people feel that that is a bad thing; that talk radio is useful only for inflaming the base and useless, and indeed counterproductive, apart from that.

These people usually believe that talk radio is a least common denominator sort of activity, and that few if any talk radio hosts attempt to logically persuade the other side or engage in intellectual arguments. Rather, they see Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as rabblerousers, irresponsibly inflaming the passions of the base rather than engaging in sophisticated, rational arguments. We need more William F. Buckleys, this line of thinking goes, and fewer Rush Limbaughs.

Of course, this ignores the fact that Buckley was a big fan of Limbaugh, and Limbaugh admired Buckley immensely. But this thinking does hit upon a difference between the two styles. Buckley and his emulators engaged in debate, in which the two sides took turns alternately making their points while finding the weak points in those of their opponents. And seen as a debate show, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and most other talk radio programs, isn’t very good. There is an occasional bit of real debate to be found, but most talk radio is far from being real debate.

But Rush Limbaugh isn’t into debate. Seen a debate show, his show is pretty poor. But seen as advertising, his show is absolutely brilliant. It is literally impossible to imagine a better way of marketing conservatism to the largest possible audience. Rush Limbaugh’s, and talk radio’s role isn’t debate—its marketing.

Consider a talk radio show—say Sean Hannity’s, because he is the best illustration of talk radio as pure political advertising. He’s an attractive person with a good radio (and TV) presence, and a strong, trustworthy voice. He delivers the same messages over and over (and over and over) in an interesting, entertaining way. He even has callers who attest to the brilliance of his product, and the occasional liberal who gets on his show invariably loses (invariably, since Hannity doesn’t play fair when he argues) to Hannity’s reasoning. So the audience member is left with a) a favorable image of conservative thought, b) the knowledge that many other people share conservative views, and c) the perception that the liberal counterarguments have been utterly destroyed by Sean Hannity. As marketing, it’s brilliant.

Not all radio hosts are like Sean Hannity, of course. Some, like Rush Limbaugh, do inject a great deal of interesting thought and insight into their show, while others are extremists (Michael Savage; while it was quite wrong of Britain to ban him from the country, I couldn’t help feeling a bit envious of them) who do the conservative movement more harm than good. But generally, Sean Hannity is a good template for talk radio as marketing.

This fact is no slight on talk radio—after all, the art of oratory has been used for persuasive purposes for a long time, and talk radio has a lot in common with, for example, Mark Anthony’s speech from Julius Caesar. Marketing is a legitimate job, and a tough one, Republicans should be glad that they have such talented people backing them up.

Nor is it a bad thing for conservatism to have its leader come from the ranks of talk radio; if Rush Limbaugh leads the movement, that’s not a bad thing. If anything, it is beneficial that the man who sells the conservative movement should also be one of those most influential in shaping it.

But if talk radio is good for the Republican party, then it doesn’t follow that debate isn’t beneficial as well. It is, and it is necessary. At present, there are few if any radio or television shows that provide rational, ordered debate, rather, most so-called “debates” consist of angry pundits flinging insults at each other across the studio, or increasingly (as in the case of Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann), across networks. Talk radio’s template is a good one—but debate is important too, and is too often neglected by conservatives.

Rush's Longevity

2009-05-12T19:55:00.000-07:00

One of the nice things about my college semester ending is the opportunity to listen to Rush Limbaugh again. It wasn’t impossible for me to listen to his show during the school year, but it was inconvenient, and I fell out of the habit of listening to Rush. (It didn’t help that Limbaugh is the only talk radio host I enjoy, as the rest of talk radio combines paranoia with echo chamber repetitiveness). But since classes have ended, I’ve had the opportunity to experience Rush Limbaugh again.

I mostly stopped listening to Rush in August, when his influence was at its lowest ebb. The Republican party was more or less clearly doomed to defeat, and it had picked the nominee he had most detested and one he could barely bring himself to support. None of the possible Republican candidates had met with his seal of approval, and the national media had last paid him attention during his ambitious and daring, but rather pathetic, Operation Chaos stunt.

When I started listening again, over the last few weeks, Rush had somehow become the de facto leader of the Republican party, and the most powerful media figure in America. This change in status was partly due to the lack of any other viable Republican figure, but also in large part due to Rush Limbaugh’s amazing capacity for self-promotion.

This talent explains how Rush has managed to stay both relevant and wildly popular for twenty years. Staying relevant that long is incredibly rare. Limbaugh started national syndication in 1988. A lot has changed since then.

In 1988, CNN was the only cable news channel. Now, it is one of three, and is in a weak second place to Fox News.

Mikhail Gorbachev, as leader of the Soviet Union, was probably the second most powerful man in the world, and was Time magazine’s Man of the Decade. Now, he’s a bit less powerful—his statement on the 2008 Russia-Georgia war was ignored, and he was last seen touring Eureka College, Ronald Reagan’s alma mater.

Cher won the 1988 Oscar for Best Actress for the movie Moonstruck. Now, she performs at the Colosseum casino in Las Vegas.

Michael Douglas won the Best Actor Award that year for Wall Street. His big movie of 2009 was Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which scored a poor 31% on Rotten Tomatoes. He hopes to reprise his famous Gordon Gecko character in Wall Street 2, currently in pre-production.

The Grammy for Best Record was taken by Paul Simon (of Simon and Garfunkel), for Graceland. He released his last album in 2006. It got good but not great reviews, but limited commercial success. Now, he spends most of his time touring.

The Emmy winner for Best Drama Series was thirtysomethings. Now, that show isn’t even shown on reruns. The leading actor of that show, Ken Olin, now occasionally stars in a show called Brothers & Sisters, which airs on Sunday nights on ABC.

The Tony Award for Best Musical was given to The Phantom of the Opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Now, that musical is still loved, and Webber is still quite popular.

Very few of those people or institutions most powerful and influential twenty years ago have retained their popular weight. (Granted, the examples I picked were from the year Rush was ascending, while these people were in the prime of their careers, but looking at the same things from, say, 1992 doesn’t change things much). Rush Limbaugh has. His show was a hit from the beginning, but he came into his own in 1993, when National Review called him the “Leader of the Opposition.” Now, sixteen years later, he is the leader of the opposition again. To retain that much influence over that period of time is staggering.

DeMint Was Right

2009-05-07T20:54:00.000-07:00

Senator Jim DeMint created a lot of controversy when he said that he “would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” Liberals pointed to this comment as proof that the Republican party is effectively marginalized, while conservatives sighed sadly and tried to distance themselves from DeMint. Virtually no one agreed with him.

They should have. Because he’s right.

Everyone, at least everyone outside the conservative movement, thinks that the best way for the GOP to become relevant again is to expand the party’s base to make it attractive to every voter. The defection of Arlen Specter is seen as a major problem for the party—if moderates like Specter continue to leave, the thinking goes, who will be left?

One problem with this line of thought—it ignores the fact that not so long ago the Republican party was in a situation very close to the one DeMint rejected. The Republican party didn’t have sixty Senators, but it did have fifty-five, and while those Senators were not wholly without principles, they didn’t have very many.

That didn’t work out. The Republican government was fairly moderate—they threw the occasional bone to their conservative base, but mostly spent their time on moderate projects that weren’t so different from what the Democrats would support.

And they got voted out. Moderation wasn’t the only reason the GOP lost Congress, and later the presidency. Corruption was an issue, and President Bush was oddly incapable of effectively communicating his plan for Iraq. And Republican fatigue was an issue too—after ten years of Republicans running the government, many voters wanted something new.

But a large part of the GOP’s decline arose because it didn’t have any real message. You can’t play the social conservative card forever, especially when you deliver as little in the way of results as the GOP did. And Bush’s confusing management and constantly shifting rationale for the Iraq War negated foreign policy as a viable issue for Republicans. Bush’s huge deficit meant that fiscal issues weren’t an option. The Republican party sold its soul for immediate electoral success—and it hurt them in the end.

Right now, the GOP’s situation is very close to the first one described by DeMint—they have more than 30 Senators, but not many more. And they have two possible ways of staging their comeback. The first is the popular choice, that they need to open the party up and make it attractive to the sort of voters who vote for Arlen Specter. The second is to try to build a strong foundation for the party on solid conservative principles.

American politics are usually pretty cyclical, so either strategy would probably work eventually. The question is which one would build a stronger, more enduring base for the party. And I think it obvious that the second option—using a small, ideologically consistent base to form the new shape of the party—would be healthier for the party in the long term.

That doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate has to be at least as conservative as (and preferably more conservative than) Rush Limbaugh. Moderates should have their place in the party. For example, Tom Ridge and Charlie Christ (both very moderate) will probably run for office again soon; both men are useful and should be encouraged. But Republicans should try to find strong conservatives to run whenever possible, and make it clear that the Republican party exists to advance conservative principles.

This approach will be difficult, and will require that the GOP change its basic way of thinking. It will also lose some voters, but will hopefully gain many more. If the Republican party doesn’t follow this prescription, they will become little more than Democrats Lite, and if they do that, they are ultimately doomed to irrelevancy.

Conservative Radicals

2009-05-06T20:20:00.000-07:00

In our modern politics, the labels of each side are pretty well understood. Liberals are those who want to move the culture and government towards something new, and change the world. Conservatives are those who want to keep things the way they are, and even move back towards a more traditional culture. William F. Buckley summed this view up by saying that conservatism is “standing atwart history, yelling ‘stop.’” The root of the word “conservatism,” of course, is “conserve,” and that is how most conservatives see their movement’s goal—to conserve the past.

That’s a bad goal, and one conservatives should move away from. In order to have a really conservative society, it will be necessary to attain at least the same amount of societal change that liberals try to achieve. “Conservatism” should be about conserving—its goal should be to try to incite an entire cultural revolution.

Conservatives spend a great deal of time wishing for the “old days,” and bemoaning change. (Or “yelling stop,” if you will). But they rarely consider precisely what decade they would choose if given the choice. The fifties? The period of McCarthyism, Jim Crow, and the beginning of the welfare state? Or the thirties, during the New Deal? Maybe the twenties, during Prohibition (an incredibly intrusive act of government) and the beginnings of the collapse of the traditional family, or the teens, where the federal government was passing constitutional amendments giving it increasingly broad powers?

Conservatives are over-affected by nostalgia, and nostalgia is all to often unsupported by fact. The past wasn’t really all that great, and it’s hard to imagine a point where yelling “stop” would have been worthwhile.

In fact, throughout the past century of American history, there has been one dominant theme: liberalism has advanced while conservatism has retreated. (Actually, that holds true for most of American history). Given that that is the case, why should conservatives feel nostalgic for the past?

Right now, abortion is recognized by most people as a legal right, if not a moral one. Aside from pro-lifers, there aren’t many who want to change the status quo. The welfare state, too, is now part of American government, and has been for some time. Most Americans literally can’t imagine changing Social Security or Medicare in any meaningful way. And Americans have gotten used to high levels of government spending—any attempt to slash the federal budget would be met with stunned disbelief by the American people.

From a conservative point of view, all these things are unsustainable, and must be reversed. But they won’t be reversed by calling on the traditions of the past. It was the past that got us to where we are today. Trying to return to some past utopia is pointless.

Rather, conservatives must attempt to totally remake society in a conservative image, moving on from America’s liberal premises. (Not that all of the premises that shape American culture are liberal, but many are). It is conservatives who are (or should be) the true radicals in today’s culture—their mission should be to wholly change the American landscape.

This will necessarily be a difficult challenge, maybe an impossible one. Social revolutions are hard to pull off. American liberals tried during the sixties, and succeeded in pushing through some legislative successes and pushing American culture to the left, but they failed in their larger goal of creating a really liberal society.

Conservatives have had their share of victories as well. But they want anything more, and want to really make America into a conservative nation, they will have to overcome their fascination for a past that never existed and try to claim the future of America.