I find it a little ironic that I want to qualify what Don Feder says in WEENIE CONSERVATIVES ["Then there's Alan Keyes..."]
as he inveighs against Obama’s deeds and plans while I’m myself not yet settled that I’m pleased to fight in an America that in principle is almost unrecognizable as such. We began ceding principle elements of America, a long time ago. Congress misinterpreted the commerce clause of The Constitution to impose it’s will on nearly any aspect of life many decades ago, and we sat still with our full bellies, warm homes and television sets, and did nothing. Reprising on steroids the folly of the Dred Scott decision with its defiance of the inalienable rights of all men, The Supreme Court 25 years ago manufactured an interpretation of The Constitution, ruling that killing human children in the womb MUST be legally permissible across the nation. And, no jurisdiction in the country said, “No, we won’t do that.” These and similar things have been perpetrated on American society, and the response has amounted to scattered whimpers. Perhaps we are fortunate today, that a more assertive people built a society that as of now doesn’t face a titanic challenge technologically and militarily. But, we shouldn’t hold our collective breath. Globally accessible technology today can reek unprecedented damage with relatively small human and material resources. Whether from a thusly equipped ideological force or a large and assertive even modestly wealthy country, America today does not possess the character and resolve to long withstand such a challenge. Before it arises, the most comfortable way to plan for such an event is to marinate in delusion about human nature and pretend that such a threat is impossible.
I’ve argued with naive idealism that misunderstands human nature fort all of my life. Wouldn’t it be simpler and better for everyone if we just went our separate ways? To say that of course, you have to be prepared to fight with more than words. Not because liberals have ideals like Lincoln to save the American experiment and to correct the insipient contradiction of the “inalienable rights” of men and the practice of slavery. No. It’s surely difficult to imagine how they would muster the character to fight, but the animus of liberals would be very simple: the vampires want to hold sway over conservatives who defend constitutional rights and American ideals BECAUSE THEY FEED ON THE PRODUCT OF THE LABOR OF THOSE PEOPLE. I’m old and disabled. In a field of battle, MY side would shoot me to protect the platoon. Back to words... I’m working on an itemization of the follies I’m tired of debating.
But, should we be moderate in presenting truth or mild in our demeanor? It seemed to me that Feder raises an opportunity to ask this important question. We should never equivocate on principle. But, we needn’t frighten people with our demeanor. To me, conservatism is a matter of ideas, not a state of the spleen or the sphincter. I’m not compromising on my conservatism. But, in recent years, I’ve been misguidedly accused of (shudder) “moderation.” I believe as Feder cites Goldwater that, “Extermism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the defense of justice is no virtue.” Probably worse is the sort of bland and stagnant aversion to essential principle that is suggested to conservatives by mass-media and some Republicans. Don’t listen to any Republican who says things suitable for the media. I don’t use the word, “mainstream,” because they aren’t, unless the stream of which we speak is the lines of broadcast communication. The Internet is today’s super-agora of ideas. If ways are devised to regulate that, will people stand by for that imposition, too?
First of all, I’ve never been known as one who was conciliatory about what I believed was truth. I’ve always been seen as one who was dogged in pressing what I believed was the truth. Some surely saw this as an inclination too often pushed beyond what was necessary and productive in some situations. I know that I will often withdraw from a discussion whilst I mentally masticate and analyze the relevant question, only to return with a point after the conversation has vacated the subject.
In politics I regard assertive pursuit of the truth as necessary and essential, and one can’t expect a statement of the truth to be persuasive or accepted if it is not clearly and assertively articulated. While I respect his resolve in defending the country in the face of political/media opposition (though he wasn’t lucid in prosecuting or defending the effort), George W. Bush was reliably not clear or assertive in defending constitutional principles domestically. I’m in his home state of Texas, where he was governor. I never voted for him for president. As I’ve often said, when he was elected president, I said “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and I wasn’t surprised by what followed. The promiscuous spending that Bush signed onto, set the table for Obama to throw all caution to the wind. George W. Bush is philosophically ambiguous. He’s no statesman and no leader. He’s a decent and patriotic administrator. He’s…well, he’s a Bush. I supported Alan Keyes in the primary seasons of the 2000 and 1996 elections.
Of 14 Republican candidates in 2000, I only favored McCain less than Bush. I now regard that as a mistake. Bush never vetoed a bill while Republicans controlled Congress. That wouldn’t have happened with a spending hawk McCain. And, he would even have defended the country more assertively. I disagreed with McCain often. But I believe he believed what he believed. Bush believed only a few things strongly. But I supported Huckabee in these primaries against McCain. And, he is a big reason I faced such slander from twisted sphincter conservatives, and still do. Such viscerally-driven conservatives are very prone to engage the oh-so-enlightened tactics of the left at radical liberal sites, where they typically resort is not to substance, but to moral and intellectual disparagement. These on both the right and left are not amenable to reason or refutation, but have set their emotional jaws like pit bulls and will not unclench them. Discussion soon becomes pointless.
Huckabee was derided by these, I think for a few reasons. For one thing, he was caricatured as only a “social” conservative. In many forums, so was I, even though I was conservative before social conservatives existed and actually differed some from Huckabee on social issues, at least in rhetoric and approach. But Pat Toomey and The Club for Growth campaigned for a year against Huckabee as a “tax and spend liberal.” If that were true, I would never have supported him. But it quite simply is not true. The Club for Growth’s campaign was a mercenary payoff to its largest contributors who were either politically or personally motivated. With that slander out there, it was picked up by the political campaigns of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, neither of whom was as conservative as Huckabee. Both had things in their records (and not just social things) that Huckabee would have had no part of. I can detail that, if necessary. Huckabee repeatedly cited the 10th Amendment separation of state-federal powers. Romney and Thompson displayed no concern for it.
His critics found corroboration in the fact that Huckabee advocated concern “for Main Street as well as Wall St.” So do I. But some conservatives flinch at such talk, like a dog who flinches when you hold up a newspaper, because he is accustomed to being beaten with it. But A) conservatism IS good for everyone. And B) Main Streeters outnumber Wall Streeters more than 10 to 1. Huckabee was right when he said if we can’t sell our message to Main Street, we’re going to lose a lot of elections. My first vote for president was for Reagan in the ’76 primary against Ford. Reagan sold Main Street, and Main Street profited from conservative principles. Like Reagan, Huckabee spoke with a smile, not with anger. We can hate deeds. We have to love people. Jesus did both.
Some things don’t matter enough to break the dishes over, much less frighten or aggravate people; though again it seems we are past that point on other big things. There are usually Biblical paradigms for what I believe. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul discusses eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, admitting that it means nothing. But he says you should not scandalize those who would be offended and associate our words with what to them is scandal. So, we must uphold what is essential but not fight over what is not. I referred to this back in 2000, when the issue of The Confederate Flag arose. We know that people legitimately want to honor their forefathers who fought under that flag. But given the fact that, correctly or not, some associate it with racism, it isn’t too much to display it at homes and museums, but not poke people in the eye by flying it in front of a state capitol. Private property and personal freedom are constitutional issues that can’t be compromised.. But some things aren’t. How much of an offense are they worth?
In any case, the Constitution of a fresh nation would need to explicitly disbar what was often more implicit in the original US Constitution, just as The Emancipation Proclamation and thw 14th Amendment made explicit what was implicit in “All men are created equal...”
WEENIE CONSERVATIVES ["Then there's Alan Keyes..."]
Showing posts with label moderate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moderate. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Colin Powell Another Well-Meaning Disoriented Republican Counselor
I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'
The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.
Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.
Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.
The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.
Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.
Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.
Friday, September 5, 2008
McCain-Palin And What Conservatism Means
A friend who was a fellow Huckabee supporter left a few comments about McCain and Palin. The first few raised questions about McCain playing more to the right, so as to lose the Independent and conservative Democrat support he once enjoyed, and also questioning Palin’s record on “values” issues. I have heard these sorts of remarks before, usually from the Democratic left. Actually, though sometimes I wish he would and still hope he will, McCain has not recanted on any of his supposedly moderate positions that defy conservative orthodoxy, save for offshore drilling, and I doubt the doubling of gas prices is incidental to that. He has always expressed a pro-life disposition. He has always been one of the biggest spending hawks in The Senate, even confronting his own party and if Republicans retook Congress, I don’t think that would stop. And, he has NEVER supported a tax-increase. Some report his support for continuing the “Bush” tax-cuts, since he originally voted against them. As he often explains, he voted against the tax cuts because despite his warnings, they were not offset with spending cuts.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)