Nutroots Fire Back, Hit Own Foot

I received the following comment yesterday:

"for conciseness' sake, replace all blog posts w/ 'liberals, LIBERALS, soulless LIEberals, materialism, liberals!, irrational, liberals! conservatives rock; I am so entirely blind to the irony of accusing liberals for a variety of offenses of which conservatives are equal guilty that Jesus is rolling over in his grave'

TIA
-nonpartisan"
 
What a wonderfully thoughtful response to my philosophy as thus far elucidated!  I love the Internet.

ADDENDUM:  The problem with putting words in another's mouth is that one inevitably reveals more about oneself than about the other person.  Look closely now:  he's changing the emphasis from liberalism and conservatism as philosophies to liberals and conservatives as people!  But that's not what this blog is about, of course.  It is about exposing modern liberalism as the malevolent moral and political force that it is, and maybe at times about expounding on the principles of conservatism.  Particular conservatives and liberals helpfully act out a continuing drama that provides material for my writings on these topics.

Liberalism is essentially irrational and materialistic in a way that conservatism is not.  Perhaps if this commenter had thought about the posts instead of simply becoming angry, he may have been able to provide a more thoughtful response to my beliefs in this area.

By the by, don't you just love the "non-partisan" label affixed to the end of that little tirade, there?  He must not know that to take sides is to be a partisan--and he has clearly taken a side somewhere, because he's arguing against mine.  (Or...ranting against, or something.)  Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with partisanship; it is the essence, an indispensable element, of democracy.  The "non-partisan" thing is such a charming schtick!

Tasteful Charlie Weis Musical YouTube

The Cowbell Commander over at Autumn Thunder has produced his very own 1 minute, 50 second musical starring the nation's first Hutt-American college football coach.  (The second was Mark Mangino.  But by that point, the way had been paved.  Also flattened.)  Enjoy!

Jewish Boy Beaten In Paris

That's right. By fifteen people. Into a coma.

Oh, and the article also reports:

In related news, the results of a survey conducted recently in Britain and
published in the Sunday Telegraph revealed that Muslim youth in the United
Kingdom are increasingly radicalized.

The report noted that radical Islamic leaders operating in the UK are having far greater success than in the past in attracting young Muslims to their causes. The researchers who conducted the survey warned that the trend is so severe that they fear the number of British Muslims willing to participate in terrorism may have increased significantly.

Welfare states have a way of reducing populations to a deadening materialism, and every such nation generates those who, having retained a sense of something higher in human life, rebel against the established order. In America, many of these--ironically--are those who call for a still more expansive welfare state. In Europe, Muslim youths are increasingly becoming radicalized against this materialism, but they aren't fighting with folk songs and large protests; they're fighting with metal rods. And unlike American conservatives, like myself, who call simply for limited and decentralized government, they call for theocracy. It will be interesting to watch the interactions between a materialist/multiculturalist society and a violently intolerant religious minority.

Having almost completely vanquished an amicable domestic conservatism, will Europe fall prey to a barbarous foreign one?

Our So-Called Education

Jason Mattera at the Washington Times notes that the overwhelming majority of commencement speakers are leftists:

Sadly, if you've attended a graduation ceremony in the last 15 years,
chances are you heard from a Democratic Party official, liberal activist, or
someone within the mainstream media. Young America's Foundation has kept a
record. The tabulations are fairly simple. We match the U.S. News & World
Report's rankings of the top 100 universities with the commencement speakers at
those institutions. Our analysis shows that the overwhelming majority of those
who can be classified on an ideological spectrum are left of center. For more
than a decade conservative commencement speakers haven't even come close to
halving the number of those who are liberals. By our count, there were only six
recognizable conservatives this year - less than one-fifth the number of liberal
speakers...

Professors at the University of Georgia tried stonewalling an invitation to
Justice Clarence Thomas by citing the much-discredited Anita Hill allegation.
Chris Cuomo, the school's director of the Institute for Women's Studies (where
else?), "wonder[ed] if the university administration is sending an intentional
message that [UGA] believe* matters of sexual harassment and gender equity are
trivial." The fact that Miss Cuomo seriously thinks an invitation to Justice
Thomas is a tacit acceptance of sexual harassment is enough to question her
aptitude. But more importantly, it gives us a glimpse into how the
"intelligentsia" perceives higher education: a brainwashing boot camp. That's
why conservative professors and textbooks are virtually nonexistent and why
commencement ceremonies send the graduating class off with one more predictable,
leftist lecture.

Read the whole thing. Gro Harlem Brundtland's appearance at Michigan State, at which I was present, merited a mention, and rightly so; she came into our country, told us that we had to believe in global warming, and badmouthed a member of the United States Supreme Court merely for disagreeing. It was a disgraceful speech given by a lower-order thinker, but it certainly captured the spirit of "higher" education these days.

An enshrined materialism and rationalism at our universities and colleges has done much to injure free inquiry and debate. Of course, reason itself tells us that reason is not sufficient to understand everything we experience; Kant proved that quite satisfactorily. But the centers of learning today believe otherwise, and the loss of a sense of mystery surrounding human nature and human society leads them to believe that the humanities can be a science like anything else. And once laid down--according to one's own assumptions--who can question the scientific laws? Resultantly, university students are not taught how to think, but what to think. Any other interpretation is derided as ignorant.

Unfortunately, our college students do not receive an education that disciplines them to be humble and open-minded, to question their own assumptions. We no longer produce philosophers; we produce engineers with an arrogant indifference to the physical laws with which they must work.

The Intellectual Weakness Of Liberalism, And Its Wrong Direction

Three recent stories highlight inherent weaknesses in modern liberal concepts of governance. First, Muskegon Pundit notes that Nebraska's state Medicaid will no longer provide for penile implants, declaring sex medically unnecessary. (Get the government out of the bedroom! Erm...) I always knew liberals hated poor people, I just didn't know how much. But, I kid the system. Anyway, I think we can all agree that almost everything one does in life relates to one's health somehow. With government-provided medicine inching ever closer, we also inch ever closer to giving government authority to decide what we eat and how much we exercise and sleep; this article shows how it may come about that government may start deciding what's really necessary for you to do, and what's not necessary. (Nyah, nyah!)

A second story, passed along by Ed Morrissey of Hot Air, relates the problem of increased drunken driving that results from smoking bans in bars. Apparently, people who want to smoke in a bar will drive longer (surprise!) to get to a jurisdiction where it's allowed, and the result is more accidents from drunk driving. The law of unintended consequences strikes again! And it is this inability to predict all the results of legislation that makes ridiculous the concept that government can use legislation to control the amount of negative outcomes.

Finally, Allahpundit notes a case in which a Canadian court overturned a sentence they considered overly harsh...a sentence passed by a father and contested by his daughter. Specifically, grounding from a school trip for breaking household rules. This example of a completely inappropriate intrusion by the state into strictly family matters reminds me of Hillary Clinton's admonition that we have to jettison the concept of "someone else's child"--i.e. that parents have a special authority over their children. The doctrinaire rationalism and egalitarianism of the Left is incapable of dealing with children, who are indisputably not governed by reason and indisputably unequal in ability to adults. The Left's movement toward increased governmental authority to parent children manifests itself, in part, in insistence on universal K-12 public schooling and court rulings such as this.

More predictable news about the American Left? They're proposing to nationalize our oil refineries, Fox News reports. (H/t: Muskegon Pundit.) Conservatives have been predicting for years, and been ridiculed for it, that the Left would move toward increasing nationalization of industries as they come to be deemed "necessary," and thus inappropriate for private control. Well, health and oil are going. Food is already heavily involved in government. How much more, and how soon? Anytime you weaken property rights in favor of some social goal, you are on a slippery slope. We'll see how this turns out.

Actually, Maybe I Will Post

Maybe.

Yesterday I attended a barbecue for bloggers at the house of Jack McHugh, and I'm delighted to report that he is even more charming in person than in his Internet comments and briefly-worded event emails! And an excellent host, beside.

I saw some familiar faces--but then, I have a pretty good memory for them--in father and son Gilman, writers of Michigan Taxes Too Much and Random Rants From An Airline Employee, respectively. Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, writer of Core Principles Blog and brave anti-vulture U.S. Senate candidate, was there as well. Also met some bloggers, new to me but not to Michigan blogosphere excellence, namely the writers of Live Dangerously Be a Conservative and Muskegon Pundit. Good West Michiganders, both. Go on, subscribe! Finally, the irreplaceable Nick DeLeeuw, creator and supreme overlord of RightMichigan.com, was there, but I found out he's a Spartan fan. Every hero has his weakness.

Breaking The Monopoly

I won't be posting for the next few days; I plan on taking a trip around the state to visit friends some friends. On this trip, I will also be attending a barbecue at the home of Jack McHugh, from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. This barbecue for bloggers follows a forum on teacher quality, hosted by Marc Holley of the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform. Although I can't attend the forum, I hope to glean whatever information I can at the barbecue. To whet your appetites, gentle readers, a column by David Keene on school choice, from TheHill.com.

The Right Ideas

Oliver Kamm writes today in The Guardian--that's right, Britain's premiere lefty publication--that the world is safer today than before the advent of George W. Bush. (!) Read the whole fascinating and thought-provoking article.

I agree with his basic analysis that the 9/11 attacks moved Bush's foreign policy philosophy in a better direction, but his execution was poor. In my estimation, Bush has been correct in believing that there is, as Kamm notes, a fundamental link between terrorist organizations and the regimes which harbor and aid them, as Hussein's indisputably did. Kamm adds, and I agree, that he was correct to understand that the Islamist radicals do not hate us because of our role in the region, but because our society's liberties, our tolerance of different moral systems, identifies us with Satan in a very real way. (It's not mere hyperbole, as when a tenured university professor calls Bush "Satan" while watching Keith Olbermann and sipping cognac. But I needlessly imperil myself.) His philosophies rightly led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but poor execution and mismanagement led to problems in both places--however, in fits and starts, both states are making progress under a renewed and rethought American offensive.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have taken almost every angle possible on the war in order to gain political points. They have abused the president abroad--a big no-no---demanded a draft, visited Islamic autocrats for a pleasant chat, tried to retreat because the Iraq War is immoral, tried to retreat because we should only do what's strictly in our best interests, tried to retreat on a timetable regardless of position on the ground, tried to ignore any progress and play up the defeats, and tried feebly to get the president to maybe say he might possibly at some time potentially withdraw our troops from Iraq once they captured Congress because they knew that actual retreat would be political suicide, as opposed to talking about retreat. (Whew!) Ascendant in the polls though they are, it does not vindicate them from their shameless politicking of America's national security. Despite the good intentions of the pacifist and the anti-war protester on the street, the behavior of Democrat congressmen has been an absolute disgrace. The crowning glory was Harry Reid declaring the surge "lost" before it had begun.

On Boumediene

George Will defends the Court's decision in the case, PowerLine's Scott Johnson criticizes Will.

Nothing makes a citizenry, or a faction of the citizenry, angrier than when the nation's unlected highest court makes a decision with which they disagree. However, Supreme Court decisions must be criticized in a cautious and moderate way, an independent judiciary being necessary to the maintenance of freedom in any democratic system of government. Not having studied law, much less constitutional law, I am also hesitant to criticize the decisions of five justices who are among the most intelligent and thoughtful law experts available in this country.

But everyone else is doing it, so why not give it a shot? George Will's main objections to the critics are that there have been worse decisions, the majority justices are intelligent people, the decision is to provide only the right to request a hearing, and the right of habeas corpus is important to the restraint of governmental power. All of these are true, but they are also irrelevant in different degrees.

The habeas right is very important in the restriction of government, but it has never before been applied to prisoners of war and/or non-citizens. To do so makes little sense. Even granting that POWs and non-citizens have this right, the Constitution provides for a suspension of the habeas right for just such a time as this. The fact that five intelligent Supreme Court justices made this decision is no defense, considering that four also opposed it vehemently. Seven justices were responsible for the disastrous Roe case. The fact that the case provides merely the right to request a hearing, and not a hearing per se, will serve to moderate the consequences of this ruling, it's true, but the right to request a hearing is still a right to a hearing, provided one chooses the right court. (And there's always a sympathetic court.) It does not change the fact that people who have never been accorded Constitutional rights, and with good reason, have been accorded Constitutional rights in a way that will have serious negative consequences for our nation's security.

George Will does make one other point--that military tribunals allow hearsay evidence and evidence produced under compulsion. Well, they aren't courts who hear the cases of citizens charged with committing a crime. They're courts designed to deal with cases having to do with military personnel and prisoners of war, and thus have proper jurisdiction over the detainees at Gitmo. What's more, their fairness is well attested.

The result of this decision will not be more humane treatment of prisoners of war. (And, despite mythology still prevalent today, the Guantanamo Bay facility is one of the most humane holding facilities in the history of warfare.) Instead, such prisoners will be shipped secretly to other nations for imprisonment and interrogation by far less civilized means, or they will simply be interrogated and killed quickly.

A New Blogger! And A Request For An Old Blogger.

There's a new blogger in town, and her name is Alcazal. (Well, that's more like her online alias, you creepy Internet stalkers you.) She took over an older group blog and converted it to her own personal uses, here. Visit, visit!

Also, ThinkCarpeDiem...come back! If you're reading this, I mean. I forgot to link you on my sidebar, but I promise I will if you start blogging again...

About The Cartoon On Top Of My Blog...

I may have mentioned before that Day By Day, by Chris Muir, while conservative politically, can be a little risque. It's still an interesting and funny cartoon, and it will continue to be featured on my site as a source of controversy and thought.

Just a little disclaimer.

The Moral Power Of Ideas

ALERT: Before reading, please understand that this book's opinions and conclusions are not exactly or necessarily my own. I shall comment on them after I finish explaining them. They are summarized here, gentle reader, for your curiosity and reflection. End alert.

Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, has compiled research in his new book, Makers and Takers, that purports to show that conservatives are pleasanter, more responsible, more ethical, and more productive members of society than are liberals. Here is a column he wrote for the Daily Mail Online about it. A portion:

The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's
premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I
believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you
happen to live.
Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care
for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if
you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per
cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.
To the
question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of
your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said
Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.
It's been
my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves
while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what
their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much
fun over a long dinner.

Read it all; there are a lot more interesting statistics to look at, all with the same conclusion drawn by Schweizer: in almost every way that a citizen can be considered to be so, conservatives are better people than liberals.

Okay, gentle leftist reader, that's the end of the part where you clench up like Jimmy Carter in Tel Aviv. Well, maybe the end. Soon more like Frank Rich in Kansas. Anyway.

I'm sure that Schweizer is aware that such research does not show that all conservatives are better people than all liberals, and it would be ridiculous to think so. But the point, and I think Schweizer's point here, is not to call liberals selfish and evil people; instead, the point is that the political philosophies that animate the Left are often both symptom and cause of a grinding materialism and self-centeredness. It insists that human happiness, and thus the efficacy of government, can be read from a series of statistics about wage trends, income inequality, and employment; it insists that social obligations are an impediment to freedom that cannot be allowed to stand.

As people break from the bonds of family and church for the sake of freedom, and as they sink into economic bondage for the sake of egalitarianism, they seek meaning more and more from material sources: leisure, comfort, longevity. Indeed, all these things are increasing rapidly; it is a testament to how wrong the liberal philosophy is that our ever-wealthier society is growing even more rapidly in discontentment and despair. Those of us who hang on to our social responsibilities and duties, our traditions and customs, seem to be closer to finding real happiness.

This is why I place such an emphasis on Obama's speech to the San Francisco liberals: it is terribly revealing of his materialism, his insistence that the blue-collar workers of Pennsylvania ought to find meaning from money and possessions rather than from God, family, and tradition. He never considered that they might be happier that way. Barack is the exciting new priest of an old and failed philosophy, a vain hope for people whose lot is unending despair.

Wow, serious post today. Well, cheers!

The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Being Scared Into Massive Change

Gregg Easterbrook, an amusing if often wrong sports commentator and political writer, gets it right today and in a major way: he gives us the numbers to show that not just the rich, but also the poor and middle class are better off today than they were five, eight, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years ago:

The case that things are basically pretty good? Unemployment is 5.5%, low
by historical standards; income is rising slightly ahead of inflation; housing
prices are down, but the typical house is still worth a third more than in 2000;
94% of Americans do not have threatened mortgages, and of those who do, most
will keep their homes.

Inflation was up in 2007, but this stands out because the 16 previous
years were close to inflation-free; living standards are the highest they have
ever been, including living standards for the middle class and for the
poor.

All forms of pollution other than greenhouse gases are in decline;
cancer, heart disease and stroke incidence are declining; crime is in a
long-term cycle of significant decline; education levels are at all-time
highs.

Sure, gas prices are up, the dollar is weak and credit is tight – but
these are complaints at the margin of a mainly healthy society...

Campaigning in Pennsylvania in April, Hillary Clinton said "We need to go
back to the prosperity of the 1990s," a comment that drew loud, enthusiastic
applause. Converted to today's dollars, per-capita income in the Keystone State
is 23% higher than in 1990. People may think Pennsylvania was more prosperous in
the past, but the state is better off today. The same can be said for most
(needless to say, not all) parts of the country and most demographics. Most are,
right now, the best-off they have ever been.

Yet, Easterbrook points out that a shocking 78% of people think that the U.S. is worse off today than five years ago. Erm...why?

Whatever goes wrong in the country or around the world is telecast 24/7,
making us think the world is falling to pieces – even when most things are
getting better for most people, even in developing nations. If a factory closes,
that's news. If a factory opens, that's not a story. You've heard about the
factories Ford and General Motors have closed in this decade. Have you heard
about the factories Toyota, Honda and other automakers opened in the U.S. in the
same period? The jobs there have solid, long-term prospects.

The relentlessly negative impressions of American life presented by the
media, including the entertainment media, explain something otherwise puzzling
that shows up in psychological data. When asked about the country's economy,
schools, health care or community spirit, Americans tell pollsters the situation
is dreadful. But when asked about their own jobs, schools, doctors and
communities, people tell pollsters the situation is good. Our impressions of
ourselves and our neighbors come from personal experience. Our impressions of
the nation as a whole come from the media and from political blather, which both
exaggerate the negative.

So...what you're saying is that the media are around to be sensational rather than present the simple facts? You're saying their narrative is designed to make you feel angry about what's really a pretty good situation? It's sort of like they...shoot first, and ask questions later. Sort of like a...drive-by?

Once again: On the "drive-by media," Rush Limbaugh gets there years ahead of Mr. Easterbrook.

Anyway, the "bad economy" we keep hearing about, the millions of people struggling, do not exist. It is not happening. It is a complete and total myth. The definition of "poor" in this country, literally, still gets you multiple TVs and a garage. Nevertheless, people are being frightened into accepting large-scale and irrational changes to the economic structure of society, in no areas more than in gigantic regulations on carbon--something that effects every area of your life--and health--which not only encompasses every area of your life, but also consists of over 10% of the national economy.

The only thing we have to fear is fearmongers demanding more power over your life.

Another Comment And Reply

I spent way too much time this morning replying to a single comment, so I'm just posting it as a regular post (again) because if I'm going to spend that much time on it, then darnit! The five people who read this blog should see it: "Anonymous" writes:

interesting ... though from Michelle Obama's speach they seem to be
promoting a "more free" american, which of course means a more "care-free"
american (no need to bother with health care, education, the works, heck why
bother at all, right?). Though it is true that what Obama is suggesting will
limit american freedom, I do think he could benifet american pride, which is
been lacking greatly. I mean, how many people do you know who don't vote or
barely follow the race? I know I know a lot. I think he's really pushing
americans to take action. Which is needed. Yet, the question is how far is too
far?

I myself am a believer in the equality of opportunity and better education.
I think taxes need definite tweaking (sales tax=stupid, but legalizing marijuana
and taxing it that instead wouldn't be a bad idea). schools whos building is
condemned, with no books or computers not getting any funds while other schools
get a new pool or tennis court = stupid. It's all public, and it's the
governments job to educate, so therefore public education should be equal, it is
a RIGHT denied to these schools because the more money is out of the question,
so other schools would lose money (and really there's only about 1/46 of schools
that have the right amount of money). hmm how much have we spent on the war in
Iraq?

oh and tax cuts make sense since we as a nation are in debt ... even though
that is almost the exact same amount of money needed to make schools whos
buildings are condemed (but kids still go there) be ... well legal(I'm mocking
bush and his timing, not you and your beliefs).I do believe americans need to
have more responsibilities as citizens, and I believe that a boost in the
economy would make problems like health care go awayyet ... how are we going to
boost the economy? The reason many people I know hate politics, and politicians,
and especially republicans is because since republicans have a history of
supporting big bussiness, and big bussiness through contracts and money and
power take away freedom believe it's the republicans campaigns that take away
"liberty".

People say "representing the african american's intrests, or the
homosexuals intrests, or the animal rights interests is only concentrating on
the minority of the country, and not the majority"... yet, how many people are
big bussines CEOs, or millionares, or even make over 80 grand a year?not
many..... and how many americans can't afford what they coul 8 years ago,
because of gas prices, jobs, education prices and even the war?a lot.

Did you know that everytime Kerry's numbers went up in the last election a
new terror elert thingy was sent out ... and people know about that ... whic of
course is very discouraging

people feel large towers all around them ... whos offering them back their
freedom in a way they understand and if they dont understand, is that their
fault, or the fault of a lack of intelect?

Did you know that if a school doesn't meet standards in test scores they
will lose funds rather than gain funds to make the school better.

They way I understand it Democracy is about what the majority wants.the
question is who is the majority?Also, how does not making it legal for gays to
marry differ at all from forcing people to do things?you can't vs. you
mustliberty sounds limited in both to me.

I mean, bush did a lot more damage than billions of dollars in debt ......
have you ever heard of Karl Rove ... you should look up things he's done in the
past ... ... it's frightening ...also, any attack isn't on you, it's my general
frustration with all parties. I mention republicans more because honestly I'm
befuddled by the idea of anyone who obviosly researches their oppinion to join
any political party ...... why? ... cuz they all crazy!!

oooooooooooh and what I was trying to say is that corporations have the
same right as a person, but people aren't equal to them. When it comes to things
like computers(Microsoft) and even health care we are overcharged (I got a cat
scan once ... 1,500$ ... it took 15 minutes) but we can't do anything about it
...

So after another long winded, and kind of unclear comment, I challenge you,
since democracy is about representing the people, or the majority, and the US
"liberty, freedom and justice for all" where's the liberty in our daily lives?
Where's the "free market" in the economy? doesn't the market just naturally make
it's OWN rules/barriers, which then makes itself inefficient?

Here's my unreasonably long response:

Thanks, as always, for the compliments!

As usual, there was much
too much there to respond to everything I disagreed with, so I’m going to try to
narrow it down a bit, and take one general shot at the whole.
J

It is not the job of “the government” to educate. To the
extent that it is government’s job at all, it is the job of state governments to
educate, and not the federal government. This is part of the important
separation of state and federal powers outlined in the Constitution. This
fact also negates the idea that the money used in the Iraq War should have been
used for education; the federal government’s most important job is national
defense, and education is not one of their jobs at all.
Schools in the United
States have more money than schools anywhere else in the world. The most
heavily-funded school districts—those in Washington, D.C., that have around
$14,000 per pupil—are also among the worst in the Western world. Schools
are not underfunded; instead, they are doing a very poor job with the money they
already have. That being the case, it makes sense to take money away from
failing schools: the possibility of a lack of money provides an incentive
for schools to do a better job. It’s the same concept behind firing bad
employees. The idea has worked wonders in the Florida state school
system.
This is perhaps the most important point: Democracy is
definitely about what the majority wants, but America is not a democracy.
It is a republic. We elect representatives who go to Washington, D.C., and
our state capitals to discuss and vote on matters of state. We have a
Constitution to prohibit those officials from taking actions that infringe upon
our rights. The Founders spoke at length on the danger of the “tyranny of
the majority,” which is the same thing you’re speaking of approvingly.
This is why democracy is not inherently good: who cares whether it’s a
tyrant or fifty-one percent of a country that takes away your freedoms?
What’s most important are the freedoms.
It’s not totally clear what you mean
by the market creating its own rules and barriers and therefore becoming
inefficient. However, you’re likely talking about inefficiency in a way
very different from how economists talk about inefficiency. I would
encourage you to read an economics book to learn about such things. I
would recommend Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell…he’s a great economist and a
great philosopher. Anyway, the fact is that markets exist for everything,
and no one can control that or take it away. All things face scarcity, and
everything has a price, whether it is expressed in money, time, or the fact that
you could have done or bought something else. You can’t make it so that a
market is gone; you can just admit that it’s there and work through that, or
pretend it isn’t and suffer the entirely predictable consequences. For
example, one consequence of everyone only paying a co-pay on health care because
they have insurance provided by the government or a company is that we’ve seen
dramatic inflation in health-care costs over the last fifty years. People
in general are surprised and angry, but economists predicted this
repeatedly. If we privatized health care, health care prices would drop
massively.
Political parties are a necessary part of politics. The
United States’s winner-take-all electoral laws means that only two political
parties at a time can ever be truly viable. This two-party system, which
can seem crazy because of the strange coalitions it produces, also performs the
important task of slowing the pace at which government takes action, which is a
very good thing. Parties do not themselves have a philosophy; they are
simply vehicles for philosophies to gain influence. Refusing to be active
in one means taking oneself out of the possibility of having any influence in
politics. The alternatives are worse: parliamentary systems that
have many political parties inevitably result in hasty, bad government action
because philosophies are considered to have mandates. One-party
systems…well, that’s obviously the worst. The last thing we need is
national “unity” on government action; that is the surest road to tyranny.
What we need is vigorous debate and disagreement.

Now I’d like to
make a few general statements about your comment. First, I’m going to make
a list of things you said that were totally unsupported by any
facts:

--The tax cuts cost the government the same amount of money
that schools need to be repaired. (Tax cuts do not, strictly, “cost” the
government money. Tax cuts have a way of stimulating the economy, which
then causes tax revenues to be higher. This is, in fact, exactly what we
saw: tax revenues increased 29% between, I think but can’t remember
exactly, 2004 and 2005. That is huge. In any case, I’d feel better
about your analysis if you told me specifically how much money, in your
estimation, schools need to become…I guess, good. Or what the tax cuts
actually consisted of.)
--Republicans support big business. (This is
almost entirely a non-factual stereotype. Republicans receive their
biggest support from the small businesses, and there is a very good reason for
this. High regulations drive small companies out of business because they
create high overhead costs that large companies are able to afford. In
this way, regulations are actually beneficial to bigger companies, because they
give them a bigger market share. This is why a lot of big business people
actually associate themselves with the Democratic Party. Think about that
the next time you hear about corporate executives pleading with Congress for
more government regulation on their corporations, which happens all the
time.)
--Businesses take away freedom through money, contracts, and
power. (How that could even be true is beyond my ability to
comprehend. Nevertheless, I realize that it is a powerful idea to
many. Anyway, if you could provide examples of how a business has done
this, or how they even could do it(!), then I could more adequately rebut this
opinion.)
--Many Americans are worse off today than they were eight years
ago. (Unemployment is low, inflation is still low, and the entire
country—with the exception of our state—has experienced a nearly seven-year
economic boom. We have not faced a single quarter of recession since
perhaps 2002, even when Hurricane Katrina ravaged an entire area of the
nation.)
--When Kerry’s numbers went up, Bush used terror alerts to push them
down again. (This is simple conspiracy theory unsupported by
reality.)
--The debt is all Bush’s fault. (Debt has two sides:
taxation and spending. Taxation depends on economic performance and tax
levels. Tax levels went down over Bush’s term, while economic performance
improved dramatically. Spending, on the other hand, and especially social
spending, ballooned massively. That was, for the most part, a result of
old-style liberal social programs like Medicare and Social Security. If we
phased these programs out, the debt would shrink quickly.)
--Karl Rove has
done many frightening things. (This is mostly a stereotype. I defy
you to find one frightening thing Karl Rove has done. He’s mostly a
liberal bogeyman whom most people like when they meet him.)
--Microsoft
overcharges for computers. (Microsoft doesn’t sell computers. Apple
does, and they charge far more for the same computer than any other company I’m
aware of.)

Whew! Okay, finally: I appreciate very much
your comments on my blog, as I appreciate all comments on what I have to
say. Especially those that make me think, or that make me take the time to
fully explain what I think on a subject. At the same time, I notice that
many of the opinions you express in those comments are not really supported by
any facts at all and/or are based on extreme stereotypes, like the “Republicans
supporting big business” meme. I know you’re an intelligent person and a
thinker, and that you’re very interested in these issues; however, I think you
have a haphazard, spur-of-the-moment way of thinking about them that hurts your
analysis and results in conclusions that don’t really make sense. I say
not to discourage you from commenting, but to encourage you to have a more
focused style—you have a good heart and a good mind, and your voice would be
much more powerful if it gained clarity and focus.

And a follow-up:

The country is not really doing badly. At all. Even in Michigan, which has
been in, technically speaking, a one-state depression, people are generally
doing well. That's not to say there's not a lot of doom and gloom out there. But
it isn't justified.

I'm going to ask you to look at the country. Look at how it's doing. Not at
how people SAY it's doing, but how it's actually doing. And be happy! Then
you'll see how unreasonable it is when (inevitably) liberals complain about the
way things are.

There simply is no crisis here. This would be a good thing to think about
the next time people accuse conservatives, ironically, of using fear to
manipulate the electorate.

Also: ThinkCarpeDiem! I think it would be best for you to continue blogging, because it's important for you to express your thoughts on your own rather than simply go after someone else expressing his opinion. I don't say that because I don't like you commenting on my posts--I do. What I'm saying is that it's important to express your own philosophy/ideas, not merely criticize someone else's. Then maybe I can leave comments for YOU to read :)

Obamessiah Watch: Talk Radio "Delusions"

Camille Paglia today called out talk radio for their delusions about Barack Obama:

Meanwhile, conservative talk radio, which I have been following with interest
for almost 20 years, has become a tornado alley of hallucinatory holograms of
Obama. He's a Marxist! A radical leftist! A hater of America! He's "not that
bright"; he can't talk without a teleprompter. He knows nothing and has done
less. His wife is a raging mass of anti-white racism. It's gotten to the point
that I can hardly listen to my favorite shows, which were once both informative
and entertaining. The hackneyed repetition is numbing and tedious, and the overt
character assassination is ethically indefensible. Talk radio will lose its
broad audience if it continues on this nakedly partisan path.

If only, Camille, if only. Hey, wait, she didn't present any argument to refute what talk radio is saying here! Let's look at the evidence.


--Marxist. Hmm, well, he did basically tell a group of San Francisco progressives that right-leaning proletarians were suffering from false consciousness. Probably just a coincidence...

--Radical leftist. Okay: He was in charge of the Harvard Law Review--not exactly a bulwark of political moderation--was a community activist for the radical leftist group ACORN, has a longtime mentor who ran a black separatist church, and offers the most sweepingly leftist platform in the history of American politics.

--A hater of America. Well, I've never actually heard talk radio claim this, so Camille's telling a little fib here. Although it is a little puzzling why Obama would want to "reshape" a country he sees as "great." But that's really neither here nor there. Now, Michelle Obama is a different story: she claims she was never proud of America before Barack Obama looked like he might win the nomination, and that America is "downright mean." Tough stuff, kids.

--"not that bright." Okay, maybe there's something there. However, it's not too much of a stretch to think that a guy who talks about an asthmatic needing a "breathalyzer" and then corrects himself and says "inhalator" might not be the sharpest Parisian in the commune. Add in the fact that he claims he managed to travel to fifty-seven states during his campaign, and you have to conclude that if this man had an "R" next to his name you know the legitimacy of his entirely Ivy League education would be called into question.

--the teleprompter thing...well, see before. Oh, I forgot the "My grandmother is a typical white person" comment. Inspiring!

--"knows nothing"--hey, I just remembered the part where he claimed he was born because of Selma, which happened two years after his birth. And didn't he claim that his uncle liberated Auschwitz while he was serving in Germany in World War II, even though Auschwitz is in Poland and was liberated by the Russians? Anyway, yeah, she's got a point here, I'm sure.

--"done less." Well, umm...what HAS he done? I guess voting party line is an accomplishment. Of a sort. Oh yeah, he managed to beat carpetbagger Alan Keyes in a Senate race after his first opponent was caught in a shocking sex scandal and forced out of his candidacy. Must've been tough.

--Ahh, Michelle Obama. Well, we don't really know a lot about her, except that she's not the biggest fan of the United States historically and she thinks we're all a bunch of meanies. There's a rumor that someone has a videotape of her railing against whites at that hilarious church they attended for nigh on twenty years, but just rumors. She wrote a pretty radical thesis in college, from what I hear, but that was in college. So who really knows? In all seriousness, this is Paglia's only potential good point here.

--"overt character assassination." Hehe. Is it character assassination if someone didn't have much to begin with? Or if it's just reporting on character suicide?

--"ethically indefensible." Yeah! No bad-mouthing the messiah. He's the messiah.

Grudgingly, McCain

If you look back at the entire run of this blog--maybe four and a half months--you will find that I was not always the prospective McCain-votin' blogger that I am now. In fact, I wrote scathingly about the man in several posts. I seriously contemplated rebelling and voting third party or not at all. But back then, I wasn't a college graduate, and now I am, and with that--apparently--has come maturity. McCain's got my vote this November.

That's not to say that McCain has gotten better, or my principles have changed. He has my grudging support in the same way that Eisenhower and Nixon had the reluctant endorsement of National Review in their times. Today, there is no single publication that has the influence among consevatives that National Review did then--which is, of course, a good thing. But some conservative publications have been less than responsible in their treatment of this presidential race. Ron Paul got a lot of traction and gained a small, loyal following of the same extremist, right-wing isolationists that William F. Buckley kicked out of the movement half a century ago. Certain blogs--admittedly, 0nce including my own--have kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism against McCain, even as he has become the clear Republican candidate and even as he will clearly face Barack Obama, the most radical leftist ever to gain the Democratic nomination.

John McCain has some views that are extremely distasteful to conservative ears. He wants government to take immediate, costly action to solve a global warming that no one knows is coming or what its effects might be. He still thinks his unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill was a good idea. His attempts at passing a disguised amnesty bill for illegal aliens are well-documented. He even has the funny idea that the salaries of corporate executives are somehow the people's business. (Mac: The stockholders can pay their executives whatever they want. It's their money. For now, anyway.)

On the other hand, he's light-years ahead of Barack Obama and his platform full of the same old liberal "solutions" and, somehow, also full of "change." Even more than that, McCain has some policy plans that provide a good first step toward a decline in the size and scope of government. He will certainly be better on judges than Obama, who would certainly nominate the sort of activist judges that have been the Left's major mechanism for advancing their agenda during the last decade. McCain has also not shown the sort of naivete and downright ignorance Obama has in discussing foreign affairs.

Although the principles he espoused were timeless, I believe that we are reaching the end of the Reagan Era, politically. His landmark election in 1980 reorganized American politics, just as Roosevelt's election did in 1932. John McCain is not quite the visionary one wants representing one's party at such a time, but he can be a good delaying tactic while we find someone who is. Moreover, we need to refocus from stopping the long march of increasing government and start developing strategies for shrinking it and presenting to the American people a vision of a freer nation.

But this sort of progress will only come about through the Republican Party, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. Philosophies are not electoral forces, but party organizations are. Just as the Reaganites did in the Seventies, we need to work to promote real conservatism, a real agenda of freedom, in the party that will have us. And sometimes that means holding your nose and punching the ticket for Gerald Ford.

A Vision For The Future

Barack Obama has vision. Well, that's not precisely true; he has articulated a vision. It is a vision of an America remade, reborn, reinvigorated. An America without inequality and without boundaries and limits. Most of all, an America unified. It all sounds very nice, but like everything politicians say--and Barack Obama has been revealed to be nothing more than a politician, shady associations and all, and a radical one at that--this vision deserves scrutiny.

One part of this vision is equality. Equality is a founding principle of this country, but it has several different meanings. This distinction is nowhere more important, philosophically, than in the splitting of modern "liberalism," which favors equality of outcome and equality between groups, and liberalism classically conceived, which favors equality of individuals before the law. These separate conceptions--which both sides conceive of as being obvious--have never been on more open display than in the recent bans on racial preferences/affirmative action passed in California and Michigan. Obama is a standard-issue modern liberal on this issue, mostly emphasizing differences between rich and poor. In order to serve this conception of equality, the loser is to be liberty; more income will be confiscated in order to redistribute it to others.

A second characteristic of Obama's vision is that it is a moral vision of politics. In this vision, Americans will treat their bodies better, other people better, their environment better, their neighbors better. In terms of health, this will mean, inevitably, state attacks on activities that harm people's health, mostly unpopular things like smoking and overeating. (Not drinking or marijuana, though, as two examples, mostly for political reasons.) It will mean mandates against activities perceived as "harming" the environment--whatever that means at the time. It will mean treating the world as though all national leaders, however they came to power and whatever their policies are, have concerns that are as legitimate as our own, even--and especially--when they don't. Finally, helping other people is the sort of morality that most Americans can line up behind. However, the question of whether that is a proper job for the government is a legitimate question--though it won't be treated that way. And Obama's vision is for an increased governmental role in charity. In all these cases, the loser--again--is liberty.

This brings us to the most frightening part, to me, of Obama's vision, which is unity. Unity, again, is nice, but what kind of unity is it? There is partisan unity, and there is bipartisan unity. Bipartisan unity is when members of the two major philosophical persuasions can agree on something; partisan unity is when members of one philosophical persuasion all agree on something. Obama's, clearly, is not a bipartisan unity. And why not? His moral vision cannot be disagreed with, at the risk of sounding unsympathetic to those who are less fortunate. And this is the danger: that those who belong to one of the dominant philosophical traditions will actually be ostracized in the name of unity. In fact, this is just what is happening whenever Obama shoots back at McCain for criticizing him. That is a perilous road.

Here, again, the loser is freedom of thought and debate--if not in code, at least in the social realm. This is the defining characteristic of Barack Obama's vision: we have certain moral values, and these will be emphasized at the expense of freedom. In the light of the last hundred years of history, this should be absolutely terrifying.

The Misuse-ity of Hope!

Wow, I was gone from blogging for a long time! Okay, back to business.

Since Barack Obama has now won the nomination, prepare for a potential series of posts--especially if I feel like it--about the man against whom I will be campaigning vociferously. I promise, I won't talk about how his supporters regard him as the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. Well, no, the other thing...the opposite. Right, I WILL be talking about that.

Sort of.

Hope is a good thing, depending on whom you talk to. It motivates us to accomplish goals. (On the other hand, it can disappoint us bitterly if it was unfounded in the first place.) Hope speaks to all of us, because all of us have ambitions and dreams. Barack Obama knows that hope is important to Americans in particular; we are a hopeful people. Obama was attacked for invoking Ronald Reagan during the campaign, but one can understand why: Reagan, too, effectively based his presidency on hope for America's future at a time when that future looked anything but bright. Moreover, people vote for the person, not the issues, and what better person to illustrate hope than a black man raised by a single white mother? (Beyond that, who better to appeal to liberals than a private-school-educated Harvard and Columbia grad who was a community organizer for the radical group ACORN and attended a radical black separatist church for twenty years? But I digress.) Republican opponent John McCain, on the other hand, is an old white man from a long line of high-ranking military officers, and a Vietnam War veteran to boot. Ho-hum.

But hope alone isn't all that great; it has to be in something. Something worthwhile--hopefully. (Ha! Erm.) Ronald Reagan's was a hope in people--ordinary people, helping other people in their neighborhoods and beyond. His was a dream of the potential of individual Americans participating in their communities, in their families, exercising their freedom to help their fellow man. He rightly recognized that state involvement in this process curbs that community involvement when he said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." History bears this out. Most people know about the Lion's Club; perhaps fewer people remember the Oddfellows, the Elks Lodge, and others. Lion's Club does excellent work helping the blind, but it--and the others--used to be more than that: they were voluntary associations to bring people in the community together and help its members when they were in need. With welfare and other redistribution programs, these organizations no longer had a serious purpose. That's just one example in a larger story.

Barack Obama's hope is that of a world improved, reshaped by the state. Before you tell me that "reshaped" is an exaggeration of his words, read this column by Jonah Goldberg, containing this Obama gem: "This was the moment--this was the time--when we came together to remake this great nation..." (Does he think it's a great nation, or does he want to remake it? Or does he want to remake a nation that's already great? These questions answer themselves one way or another.) He insists that he dreams of America coming together, of Americans helping each other. But if you think he means that he trusts Americans to give voluntarily of their time and money, think again. Instead, he means to take the sphere of morality out of Main Street, USA, and move it to the office buildings of Washington, D.C. That is the fundamental mistake of modern liberalism: it means to make morality an issue of governance, rather than of private will.

This is its appeal to many Christians, and its downfall when compared to actual Biblical teaching. Christians rightly believe that their duty is to help the sick, the poor, the needy: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27, NIV). But just as Christianity emphasizes loving those around us, so too it emphasizes a separation between the Church and the state: "Then he said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's'" (Matthew 22:21b, NIV). At question here was the payment of taxes, but it also gives us an important principle for understanding the relationship between Christianity and the state. If charity is in Caesar's sphere, then by all means empower him to conduct charity. But if it belongs rather to God, then Caesar must not get hold of it. The state is not, nor can it be, an instrument of grace. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, politics cannot be redemptive. Anyone who tells you otherwise is truly a totalitarian; for this reason, hope in the state's ability to change the world was central to Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Roosevelt's New Deal.

The idea does not make us feel good, and therefore does not often get much traction, but politics must be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, whether the candidate in question is a war hero, a powerful speaker, a Baptist minister, or an actor. Government cannot be a realm of hope for us; indeed, such an idea could not be more terrifying. It is the ultimate primrose path, taken with the highest intentions, to a totalitarian hell. In the Aeneid, the prophet Laocoon, who warned the Trojans not to bring the horse into their city--it was here, in fact, that Vergil coined the phrase, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"--was an unsavory character, but he was right. Likewise, beware politicians proclaiming hope. Hope is not theirs to proclaim.

Fascist Multiculturalism Rears Its Head In England

Adolph Hitler's brand of fascism, and in fact much of American progressivism even through the Thirties, was built around notions of racial strength and purity. Jonah Goldberg traces this grouping tendency to the Sixties' race riots--specifically the violent black separatist movements, many of which were based on black racial supremacy--and today to the left wing's explicit use of racial politics to divide Americans into groups based on culture and race. Of paramount importance to them is that "white culture" not influence those of other ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds. Even at the large missions conference in Urbana, Missouri, one of my friends heard a talk about racial and ethnic justice, and how healing begins when we learn to take pride in our ethnic backgrounds; this notion, the fascistic undertones of which are obvious, is an obsession on the Left, and especially college campuses. Of course, this typically leaves white Christian males who buy into it still feeling a bit less than racial and ethnic pride--after all, when someone talks about "injustice," it's "his people" who are the offenders. As Jonah Goldberg put it, white men are the new Jews.

Sometimes this notion is revealed a bit more clearly--especially in nations without a Constitution to protect its citizens from intrusive government. So, as Allahpundit reports, a group of police officers in Britain accosted a pair of Christian ministers for dropping leaflets in a largely Muslim area and for talking to several young Asian men about Christ. From the original report: "He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station." As Allah notes: "In America, as far as I know, hate crimes constitutionally can only be charged in connection with another criminal offense. You can’t be charged with hate; you can be charged with assault and have your sentence enhanced if they prove the assault was motivated by hate. Thoughtcrime + actual crime = hate crime, in other words. In the U.K., it sounds like they’re flirting with knocking out that pesky “actual crime” element and just going the whole nine Orwellian yards. " If you think he's being hyperbolic, read this article that Allahpundit also posts to. Orwell: Your version of tyranny, at least, will likely never reach American soil, but your homeland has begun to buy into it.

Set aside the question of whether you think that Christian missions are morally right. (Though I believe they are not merely right, but morally required.) Set aside your gut reactions about ministers speaking about their beliefs to those who hold other beliefs. There is, quite simply, no sense in which the government has the right to go about preventing people from sharing what they believe is true about the world.

But this is what happens when the law becomes a cultural and racial tool: Inevitably, it becomes a hammer with which to strike against whatever group is disfavored at the time. You can thank the Founding Fathers that we in America have the right--at least nominally, though not on most college campuses--to offend whomever we want, to have whatever opinions we want, and to debate about them with anyone we want. In the United Kingdom, such freedom of thought is on the wane.