Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties: Part 2 - The US


As I wrote in a companion post below:

At a time when the left has swung the pendulum hard to the left in both the UK and the US, at a time when the electorate of both US and UK appears poised for a massive move to the right, the "conservative" parties - the Tories in the UK, the Republicans in the U.S. - seem far from up to the task. When we need Churchill and Reagan, we instead have leaders in the mold of Clement Attlee and Herbert Hoover. The problem is particularly acute in the UK.

In the post below, I address the problems of the UK and its "conservative party." By comparison, our problems in the U.S. are not as dire as those of Britain's, largely because our democracy is much more representative than is their's. Yet in some ways, our problems are not dissimilar. In both countries, the left has pushed our nation's so far to the left that the economies and the very fabric of our societies are threatened. Further, today, neither in the UK nor in the U.S. is there a sufficiently strong leader on the right to stem the tide. For the UK, four weeks from their next election, that fact is disastrous. For we in the U.S., it is not yet at that point given that we are about two years out from having to decide who will be the Republican nominee. Yet the problems that they will face will be every bit as daunting as those faced in the UK:

- Between massive deficit spending and out of control entitlement programs, our economy is approaching a potentially existential crisis:

The U.S. government has $12.5 trillion of funded debt, almost 90% of last year’s GDP. That is a critical level according to Reinhart and Rogoff based on their 800-year study of sovereign bankruptcies. Serious, funded debt is not the major problem. Unfunded entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are. These are estimated to be $106 trillion.

And still Obama continues a world record spending spree.

- the left wars on business (non-union businesses, at least) and the profit motive. Given the Obama plan to let many of the Bush era tax cuts expire and given the murmurings about a VAT tax, it appears that Obama's next grand act will be an attempt to tax us into prosperity.

- the war on business has resulted in persistent and staggering unemployment in America. "The U-6 unemployment number . . . is at 17.5%, within 0.5% of its all-time high. This figure includes discouraged workers who've stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and workers that are forced to work part-time because full-time jobs are not available."

- the enactment of Obamacare portends to only worsen our fiscal crisis while doing nothing to alleviate the severe crises posed by are already existing entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and S-CHIP to name but a few.

- Public sector unions, only allowed in America since the days of JFK, are a toxin in America. They have perverse incentives to push for bigger government and higher taxes and they operate unchecked by market forces. They degrade performance in every aspect of the government where they exist and are a particular problem in education. The average public sector union worker now makes significantly more than their private sector counterparts - and they are destroying state and local economies with massive unfunded pension liabilities.

- Regulatory burdens, particularly in the area of environmentalism where the left has handed the keys to the courthouse to the radical greens, with untold costs to our economy. Moreover, in a move that bypasses Congressional refusal to enact cap and trade, the EPA recently announced that they will begin regulating carbon - in what portends to be a significant cost to our economy.

- Proposed regulatory changes to our financial structure that will place significantly greater racially charged lending standards on our financial institutions, despite the fact that this same degradation of lending standards led in large part to our current financial meltdown.

- The removing of any caps on the liability that will be underwritten by the U.S. government from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

- The left continues to feed the race baiting industry beyond long after we passed any rational justification. It is time to bring an end to affirmative action as well as any and all use of the disparate impact theory to punish entities for racism despite no evidence of any act of racism. It should be noted that Obama wants to expand the disparate impact theory as part of the new financial regulations.

- our Courts are regularly legislating from the bench, reinterpreting Constitutional provisions in a manner far outside of the original intent of the drafters to bypass the ballot box on contentious social issues, ripping at the fabric of our nation. We could really use a Constitutional Amendment on this issue to provide some guidance to the Courts on how to execute their Article III duties.

All of the above are simply domestic problems - and the last two our my own issues that are not as pressing as the rest, but that do need to be addressed as part of a radical reorientation of our domestic polity. None of this even begins to touch upon the problems Obama and the left are causing in foreign policy.

Whoever is to tackle all of these problems in a decisive manner will have to be highly intelligent, articulate, and sufficiently driven by internalized conservative idealism to withstand the type of massive assault in the left wing MSM that will come with applying conservative solutions to the above problems - many of which will of necessity mean reorienting America away from the left wing path it has been on since at least FDR. Moreover, we are going to need a reorientation that has as its absolute focus the growth of businesses of all size - we are in a hole where the only answer to both our deficit and our undemployment problem is to grow ourselves out of both. Do we have a leader that strong on the horizon to accomplish all of these things?

Perhaps we do. I think New Gingrich fits that bill. I would also watch closely Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. I think all others are a level below these three in intellect, if not also in the intestinal fortitude needed to lead the type of radical reorientation our nation needs to survive, let alone to remain as first among equals.

Newt Gingrich - He is an absolutely brilliant man and a highly articulate speaker. Compliments of the MSM smear machine in the 1990's, many in the left and center have negative views of Gingrich, though it is doubtful those general views are today sufficiently strongly held to disqualify him from making a run. Of all the potential candidates, I would think him most qualified and the most likely to be able to address the many problems of our country itemized above.

Paul Ryan - I do not know enough about him yet to put a gold star next to his name, but his performance during the televised dog and pony shows with Obama have shown him to be articulate and in possession of a first class intellect. It is also notable that he is the only one, of all the Republicans in Congress, to actually publish an alternative to Obamacare. He is one to further evaluate.

Chris Christie - This man impresses ever more on a daily basis. He faces many of the problems in governing New Jersey that our nation faces on a grander scale. He is demonstrating daily a strong intellect and an even more impressive hard as nails approach to the problems of New Jersey. If he succeeds in turning around New Jersey in any cognizant fashion, he will definitely be a person to watch - if not in the 2012 election, then in 2016 and beyond. He has already demonstrated the combativeness and cajones necessary to push through the radical reorientation our country needs and he, unlike George Bush and much of the Republican Party, has also shown a willingness to push back hard against the smears of the left.

Then there are the lessers and the long shots:

Sarah Palin - as much as I like her, I don't see her as sufficiently rounded to make a run for the Presidency. I think her decision to give up her governership not even half way through her term was fatal to a bid for 2012. Perhaps in 2016 she might have a chance.

Mitt Romney - His claim to fame was his economic smarts. But the simple fact is that he designed Obamacare for Massachusetts. Either his economic smarts are vastly over-rated or this man is an incredibly cynical political opportunist. Regardless which, we can afford neither in office beyond 2012, and thus I won't be pulling a lever for him under any circumstances.

Mike Huckabee - his foreign policy views were what turned me against him during the last primary and nothing since has occurred since that would lead me to believe that he has gained strength in that area. That said, I do like his Fox shows.

Ron Paul - I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Paul. He really is a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty - I do not know enough about him at this point to make a decision on Pawlenty. I have heard him speak a few times and have not walked away with either a positive or negative impression. Perhaps that itself says all that needs to be said.

We will see who rises to the top over the next year. The other critical issue will be gaining conservatives in sufficient numbers in Congress. At any point in my lifetime, I would not have thought that possible. But today, given the path to the far left Obama is pushing us and the strength of the Tea Party movement - I now think it very possible.

Read More...

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Abby-Normal Brain of Global Warming Realists



George Lakoff, apparently a modern day phrenologist, argues that it is the abnormal brain function of conservatives that makes them unable to acknowledge the settled science of global warming. Moreover, it apparently makes these same drooling idiots believe in free markets. Who knew?

This from CNS News:

Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that "cognitive" brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says "climate change" is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book "The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics," says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.

Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person's understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs -- including what they think about global warming.

"It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong," Lakoff said.

"And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science," Lakoff said.

On the other hand, he added, liberals' cognitive process allows them to be "open-minded."

"Liberals say, 'Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’" Lakoff said.

In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite "a raft" of contradictory reports.

"This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs," Joyce said.

. . . Lakoff, however, said that "99.999 percent of the science is final" on global warming and, in fact, the term "climate change" should be changed to "climate crisis" to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

"Climate crisis says we had something to do with it and we better act fast because that's the reality," Lakoff said

. . . In a February article on The Huffington Post, Lakoff praised recent media reports on the physiological and conceptual roots of political beliefs. He credited some of the movement to his 1996 book "Moral Politics," where he claims that these beliefs are rooted in the "two profoundly different models of the ideal family, a strict father family for conservatives and a nurturant family for liberals."

Lakoff writes, "In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from ‘others’ and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting.

"Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence -- doing well as one can to make oneself and one's family and community better." . . .

And this screaming idiot is a tenured professor? God help us but academia needs a high colonic - with a fire hose.

Read More...

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A New Cold War In America


We The Government indeed. Cartoonist Michael Ramirez is certainly one of the most perceptive individuals of our generation. The only thing he missed was the signature block, with Obama's name written in the size of John Hancock's.

Is there anyone on the right who does not realize we are in a zero sum ideological war in America today? It is not only against the progressive left in Congress, but equally against a MSM in the pocket of the progressive left. For instance, this today from MSNBC:

[I]n a week when Democrats are celebrating the passage of a historic piece of legislation, Republicans find themselves again being portrayed as the party of no, associated with being on the losing side of an often acrid debate and failing to offer a persuasive alternative agenda.

The party of "No?" You have got to be kidding me. Republicans were virtually shut out of the health care negotiations. They made attempt after attempt to influence health care legislation, only to be rebuffed.

If you want to see a "party of no," take a look at the left. When Bush attempted to fix a Social Security system clearly destined to fail, changing it from a ponzi scheme to essentially a personally owned, government administered 401k, the Democrats utterly refused to engage in any sort of dialogue or to offer any alternative plans. Everytime someone says the party of no, we should be replaying:





There is your party of "NO."

And this bit about "failing to offer a persuasive alternative agenda" is almost as offensive. Rep. Paul Ryan did precisely that in his "roadmap" for America, posted on line in November. So ignored was it by the MSM that three days before the "healthcare summit" in February, Obama and Gibbs were quoted as calling on Republicans to post something online. It was outrageous.

But it also makes my point - that Republicans are utterly failing at communications. The three biggest things Republicans can do to help their chances are, one, to develop a far more effective communications apparatus, recognizing that the MSM is, but for Fox and the Wall St. Journal, an ideological enemy that will do them no favors. The second thing they need to do is to challenge major misstatements or spin in the press, pointing out the bias and hypocrisy of the press itself. The press likes to pretend to objectivity, so they may not like it, but they will have to run the criticism. Three, stop worrying about decorum and start accurately expressing emotion. If the President is lying to the American people - then damn it, use the word "lie," use it with passion, and then explain why. The left operates to a large degree on pure emotion while the right is far more restrained in expressing it. That has to change if the right is ever going to get its message across and make it stick with the electorate on a visceral level. I am not arguing for adopting the pure emotion and intellectual dishonesty that are the hallmark of today's progressive left, but rather marrying intellectual honesty with emotion.

It is not enough to stop the progressives at this point - to have a static trench warfare, to use military terminology. This is a new Cold War. And as were their socialist progenitors, our modern progressives must be fully delegitimized, defeated and sent to the dustbin of history.

Update: Having looked at Doug Ross's blog, perhaps it would be better to call this a newly hot war - as a civil war graveyard tells us that Democrats have been at war with our country for a very long time.





Welcome: Smart Girl Politics readers.

Read More...

Thursday, September 25, 2008

McCain The Chessmaster Part II


McCain's motivations to suspend campaigning, tentatively to suspend the debate, and to return to Washington for the duration of the fiscal crisis get clarified. And McCain gets the seal of approval for his acts from former President Bill Clinton - who even manages to work in a jab and a right cross to Obama. Lastly, Fox News notes the potential downsides for McCain if he is not able to rally Republicans behind a plan.

I wrote below, in the post McCain the Chessmaster, that I suspected that McCain's decision to suspend campaigning and return to Washington was a mix of both cold political calculus and "country first." It turns out I was too cynical. We learn today that McCain was responding to a direct plea from Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson to return to Washington and take leadership of the Republicans. This from Bob Schieffer at CBS News:

I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

He has gotten what he wants, he’s going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I’m told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.

As Hot Air notes, after McCain explained this to Obama and offered to have him attend also, this puts Obama's initial decision not to take part in the Washington debates and not to suspend campaigning into a much blacker light. McCain answered the 3 A.M. phone call; Obama routed it to his answering machine.

And Bill Clinton could not be more partisan in this - partisan on the side of McCain. In one minute, Clinton:

1. Says McCain is acting in good faith in making his decisions

2. As to the possible cancelling of the Friday debate, opines that this is not a cold political move because McCain wanted more debates.

3. Recasts the fiscal crisis as a national security issue - and when people think national security, McCain has over a twenty point advantage on Obama.

This is really amazing:



(H/T Hot Air)

Lastly, Fox News points out, as I did in the post below, that McCain is taking significant risk in coming back to Washington because Republicans are in revolt over this bailout. If McCain fails to rally Republicans around the rescue operation, he will fail. If he rallys them around the op but does so without doing anything to placate conservatives, all the good will he has built up since February may well evaporate. I will say again, McCain needs to get something in the plan about a two year suspension of the capital gains taxes to get our economy to recover. That would be a win for McCain among the conservative base. It would also force Democrats hand. Such a reprieve on capital gains taxes could be sold as a necessary measure to protect people's life savings and 401k's during what is going to be a rough patch even with the bailout.


Read More...

Monday, May 19, 2008

Victor Davis Hanson on Unmoored Republicans

Republicans in Congress are leaderless, silent, paniced and delusional. They have lost there bearings since the end of the Regan era. They have no fiscal conservatism and seem to think the answer to their woes may be emulate the left. Its not. Victor Davis Hanson weighs in at PJM with his own statement for a Republican platform:

___________________________________________________

This from VDH writing at Pajamas Media:

. . . What mystifies is the paralysis of Republicans and their impotent protestations that “Bush did it”. The truth is that Congressional Republicans, responsible for turning principles into governance, deserve to lose—unless they craft clear positions that won’t be compromised and then offer them as alternative choices to the voters this fall. Here are some examples:

Spending: a balanced budget, no exceptions. Voters are tired of hearing that this or that projection assures a balanced budget in 2, 3, or 5 years. Revenues continue to soar after the tax cuts, so the problem is too much going out, not too little coming in. Surpluses are preferable to deficits, since we want to retire, not add to out foreign debt. . . .

The War: Afghanistan and Iraq have radically improved. Anti-war hype and slurs are a year out of date. We are finally on the edge of having done the impossible: removed the most odious regimes in the Middle East and fostered constitutional governments in their places. Spending on general defense and the war still run at only 4% of GDP, not high by historical levels. The reforming Petraeus army is stronger and wiser, despite the toll of war, for our ordeals in the Middle East. As troops slowly begin to come home next year, let everyone take credit for it.

Energy: Drill, explore, conserve. The answer does not lie in any one area, but in the willingness to produce more energy in all of them. We must ensure more oil, coal, and nuclear power, conserve more energy as we produce more—to prevent going broke while we transition to next-generation fuels.

Why should others abroad, who are far less careful, extract oil for us in areas of the world more fragile than our own? We must end the notion that ANWR only yields a million barrels a day, or the coasts only 2 million, or tar sands or shale only a million, or nuclear power and coal only so many megawatts of power. To paraphrase, Sen. Dirksen—‘a million barrels a day here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real production.’

Economy: We are in a natural down cycle, not the Great Depression—interest rates, unemployment, economic growth, and stock prices do not reflect a recession. Use this downturn as a warning not to spend what we don’t have when things rebound.

Immigration: Close the border, and then, and only then, argue over what’s next. Stop illegal entries, while we promote assimilation, the English language, integration, and education in American civics. Do that and most of our seemingly insurmountable problems will shrink as we endlessly bicker over amnesty, guest workers, and legal quotas.

Trade: free and supervised trade creates more jobs, makes us more competitive, and fosters alliances. Protectionism does the opposite. Americans like to compete and usually win—when they know the rules of the contest are fair and clearly explained to them.

Foreign Policy: Neither provoke nor talk to our enemies in the Middle East, Asia, or South America. Instead, cultivate our allies, build our defenses—and be ready for anything.

Homeland Security: the framework is in place. Let the Democrats try to repeal it. Let them make the argument that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo haven’t made us safer.

Ethics: Warn Republicans that in matters of sex, influence peddling, and graft, the Party of family values suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy. So the tolerance level for these sins is zero.

If Republicans could adopt such a simple message, stick to it, and find the most articulate spokespeople, they could still win.

. . . The In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.


Read the entire article.


Read More...

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Time To End The Tantrum & Support McCain

From Jules Crittenden: "Sitting out Election ‘08 because you don’t like McCain could mean a defeat in Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran in four years’ time. Will that make you feel better?"











------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have blogged here and here that conservatives, in whose number I include myself, need to stop the childish bitching redolent of the far left and rally around McCain. I have also blogged here about the existential ramifications of being seen as retreating from Iraq. Jules Crittenden speaks forcefully to both issues today in PJM:

You’ve had your tantrum. Now it’s time to be adult about it.

That is the heart, after all, of what being a conservative is about: recognizing reality and dealing with it.

Conservatives of many stripes have plenty of reasons to be unhappy with the ascendancy of John McCain. If abortion is your issue, if illegal border-crossing is your issue, if McCain-Feingold did it for you, or the accusations of torture in the midst of a difficult, dirty war. The list goes on. It may just be the long career of contrariness, punctuated by moments of anger.

Some conservatives are talking about sitting it out. The idea is that it is not such a bad thing to lose one. It might be better for the party. Give the other side enough rope, let the Republican Party regroup and find its feet and a few new candidates.

It’s loser talk — bitter loser talk — worthy of the Democratic leadership of Congress. You’ll recall they claimed a mandate they didn’t quite have, fought the same futile battle again and again, but failed to bring anything viable to the table. Rather than look ahead to the interests of the nation, they looked to their own narrow political interest, failed to satisfy that either, and stumbled and fell, earning the disgust even of the people who voted them in.

Now, in time of war, when there is a single issue that trumps all others, some conservatives are looking to duplicate that absurd and dangerous performance, to the detriment of the United States. In fact, they are opting to hand ultimate victory to those same Democrats.

. . . What is undeniable is that the single greatest threat the United States faces is that in four years, Iraq is abandoned, chaos and genocide take hold there, and the great expenditure of precious American blood and treasure there is rendered a waste. In four years, Iran can have a nuclear weapon. Both of these events will have wide ramifications. The nations of the Middle East and Far East can see a United States weakened and unreliable, and they will look elsewhere and to other means to defend their interests. Meanwhile, Iran, China, North Korea, Sudan, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Myanmar regime, Putin — I’m sorry, it’s a long list; I might have missed some — can be relied on to take advantage of our absence from the field to advance their own positions.

Because America will be perceived again to be a nation without a spine, a nation that chooses to lose, a nation that will not fight for its ideals. Is it the sixth or seventh time in the last four decades? Vietnam. Iran. Lebanon. Somalia. Al-Qaeda and Saddam in the 1990s. Our enemies know that list very well. It is their mantra, the weakness they see in us that strengthens them and keeps them going.

This retreat will be bigger and more devastating than any of those, because this time, there will be no disputing that they are correct. When the American right as well as the American left has chosen surrender to global enemies rather than set aside its domestic political fights, then America has no right to claim superpower status, and the American dream is at an end. We will become, like Europe, a sump of ideals.

Whatever else John McCain may or may not be, there is no denying that when it comes to a vigorous, sensible prosecution of a war that is fundamental to the continued existence of western ideals, the single most important issue of our day, he is committed and he is the only candidate still standing who can be relied on. He may be a severely flawed champion, but right now, he’s the only one willing and able to fight that battle. America needs him.

That means conservatives of all stripes, who pride themselves on being rational adults who have set aside childish things, need to begin acting the part.

Read the entire article.


Read More...

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Republicans Return To Reagan

There is little disagreement that Republicans as a group lost their way over the past several years. Republican leadership in both the House and Senate has ranged from weak to nonexistent and loyalty has mattered more than bedrock principals and values. That is the only reason I can fathom that Republicans put Jerry Lewis and Ted Stevens anywhere near our nation’s checkbook. Conservative values that infused the Republican Party from Reagan's presidency through the Contract with America fell by the wayside as Republicans settled into the majority. Nowhere was this more evident than in spending. The Republicans of today tossed aside the mantle of fiscal conservatism, embraced earmarks and spent like drunken Democrats. Indeed, in a role reversal, the Dems rode to power in 2006 on their promises to clean up the fiscal mess and to attack earmarks. As is now apparent, that role reversal barely survived the swearing in ceremonies.

Regardless, there is apparently a movement afoot to try and breathe life back into the Conservative movement among our lawmakers.

Capitol Hill Republicans are invoking former President Ronald Reagan in their latest effort to strengthen their party's conservative credentials, forming a new caucus whose members must pledge to support limited government and to restore ethics in Washington.

"We don't want to go back to what Reagan did," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "We want to take those principles he stood for and go forward, applying them to the challenges of today."

. . . "As a party, we've been strong on social issues," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican. "But on spending issues, we've dropped the ball."

. . . Along with Mr. DeMint, Reagan21 was formed by a small group of similarly-minded fiscal and social conservatives. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is the Senate's other leading member, while the House membership includes Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the RSC chairman; John Shadegg of Arizona; Mr. Campbell; Tom Price of Georgia; and Mr. Ryan.

"Americans are disgusted by a Congress that is self-dealing and corrupt — that spends too much and under the control of the new majority is moving dramatically to the left," Mr. Shadegg said.

Read the whole story here. This news is strikes me like good news out of Iraq. It is wonderful and it’s a real step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before success can be claimed.

Read More...