Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Dobson On Giuliani., Janet Folger To Values Voters, Another Poorly Focused Debate, And Conservative Foolishness

Watch the interview of James Dobson with Sean Hannity on Monday night about Rudy Giuliani. Dobson was followed on the program by Ann Coulter who agrees that The Republican Party should not nominate Rudy Giuliani. It doesn’t look too good for him.

Janet Folger of Faith2Action writes, It’s Hillary Or Huckabee:

Kathy at live-blogged and reported on the debate, last night, and lists links to other Huckabee bloggers who did, as well. Though Mike Huckabee handles himself well in the morsels of time the debates toss him and as usual he got positive reviews, personally, I’m getting exasperated with the shows these muddled-headed media people put on. All of them and MSNBC in particular, are clueless as to fairness in the system and as to what is critical for Americans, especially conservative Republicans, to hear and know about. As a liberal, I think Chris Matthews attempts to be fair. But, his head is inextricably lodged in a liberal fishbowl. Try though he might to be fair, he can’t illuminate the “other side,” BECAUSE HE DOESN’T SEE IT! Oh, he knows all ABOUT it. But, he has no experience of it.

And speaking of that, one of the very sad things in American social life today, is that Democrats and Republicans in the pop-conversation are so entrenched in animosity toward each other, that they not only fiercely disagree (and I am a conservative who does disagree), they can’t even empathize with how others feel and the logic inside their alternative perspective. As I always say, the problem with most disagreements is not the logical concisions. Impeccable logic and faulty premises, yields perfectly reasonable but FALSE conclusions. I see this sort of unsympathetic dispute all over the place, with people talking past each other. And conservative people express that most starkly to this conservative, perhaps because it’s me who is being misrepresented.

After the debate, a Wall Street adviser on Larry Kudlow’s program was very dismissive after the program’s interview of Mike Huckabee, saying he has nothing useful to say. Why did he say that? Well, because Huckabee made allusions to what many have referred to as “populism?” That is, that we should show as much interest in average individuals as in financial managers and corporate executives.

Now listen, I’ve been conservative all of my life. I believe in a free market. I not only appreciate, but applaud financial success and wealth creation. I understand that free markets and economic dynamism not only produces individuals of extraordinary wealth, but produces prosperity for the entire society and opportunities for everyone. I GET IT! I’M ALL THERE! I was before this younger financial analyst was and may well support it more clearly than he does!

I have written about how a favorite talk show host of mine, Dennis Prager, has been frustrating me severely with his myopic focus on the superiority of any Republican over a Democrat: which misses the point about the dissolution of Republican principle, which has now long been the last refuge of the American principle of the sanctity of life. Today, Prager hosted Ann Coulter, asking her about the debate, last night and this favorite concern of his, these days. Coulter also scorned Huckabee for his talk about “lifting up poor people.”

Many conservatives are so browbeaten that they can’t hear anything like such talk without reflexively recoiling in fear of activist government interfering with and coercing private interest. This reflex is so violent that they can’t even hear Huckabee’s explicit explanations that he has no such thing in mind. All he has said is that companies should reward good and reliable employees…for the good of everyone, including the company. And, he has said that Republicans must condemn immoral corporate officers who reward themselves with multiplied millions while driving companies into bankruptcy and robbing employees of employment and pensions.

And, this is a bad thing?

Huckabee is right that Republicans should show concern for all Americans. Even if you set aside the simple morality of that, for just the sake of politics, there are many thousands of corporate officers and financial managers, and there are TENS OF MILLIONS of average voters! HelLOOOO!

Most Democratic voters don’t HATE what conservatives believe. They don’t even UNDERSTAND it. Especially in the face of the prosperity they see on television, they can be frustrated by their own insecurity and concern about monthly expenses. THAT, they understand! If conservatives won’t even try to empathize, we certainly can’t be surprised if they don’t understand us, either.


Michigan Redneck said...

Great post! Thank you for the mention.

Family Mentors said...

Hi Larry,

Notes below posted to "Greatest story never told":

Land’s “Greater Good v. Greater Evil” argument has been the GOP left’s argument for as long as I can rember. You may remember Hannity shilling for Schwartzenegger in the California runnoff that made him the “Governator”? Now it’s illegal to use harmful words like, “parents,” “mommy,” “daddy,” etc. in classrooms in the Golden State because they "discriminate" against homosexuals.

We have come to a major decision point in this country. One in which we need to risk eight years of Hillary at the helm in order to forge a new pro-family coalition.

Ethically, the best choice should be the only choice. If all voters operated this way, Hillary at the helm would not be risky because she would not win in a race where people of conscience voted their conscience. With Rudy or Mitt as her opponent, the eventual victor wouldn’t matter since their views are so similar to hers. In other words, we should rally around a true social conservative and let the electoral chips fall where they will.

Short version: We can all support candidates like Huckabee because it won't matter whether they can beat Hillary.... but I believe Huckabee can win anyway.

Larry Perrault said...

family mentors:

I could find neither your profile or the post you referred to. But of course you're right, that the social left of The Republican Party has long made "Land’s 'Greater Good v. Greater Evil' argument." But, we must be certain to note that Richard Land, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer are not of the social liberal left of the GOP.

So, theirs is not an animus of antipathy to social conservatism. Theirs is what at bottom, may be the more ignoble animus of a spirit of fear, rather than a positive spirit of exalting the standard of a clear an unambiguous ideal of the sanctity of human life.

The problem is not a Narcissistic one of whether we tarnish our own integrity with respect to our values. No, the big problem is the sacrifice of what war laid down as a foundational should be an American standard and which, in fact, one major political party in The United States has umapologetically abandoned.

If The Republican Party puts that most basic of principles on the negotiating table:

1) Republican strategists need never consider it, again. It's advocates can be taken for granted.

2) We are affirming as Republicans, a chief executive of The United States who is lost on the ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC of founding American principles. That's the individual you want charged with protecting and defending The Constitution.

By the way, this is hardly a unique example of Giuliani's oblivion to American principle. Such ineptitude at comprehension of principle is a dangerous condition that will repeatedly reappear, and it has.

3) If American society assimilates and becomes passive to this most basic principle, self-centered incivility will become a an acceptable and standard disposition. I believe that civility in America will be well down the path of dissolution.