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.

Ben Stein's Smarts and God's Wisdom - Ben on Friday's Medved's Show

Michael Medved was surprised in a discussion of federal stimuli and bailouts on Friday, to hear the reaction of Ben Stein who is accomplished on many fronts and traditionally a Republican. He is also the son of noted Republican economist, Herb Stein. I was not surprised. Stein supports both a huge stimulus and a bailout of the auto companies. Taxes or debt aren’t necessary: just print the money, he says. I have heard Stein say these things many times. He also says the very wealthy must be taxed to provide health care for those who can’t afford it. That’s a noble sentiment, but it has practical problems. It’s a disincentive to achieve and a disincentive to attentive and innovative health care. But I think there is a conflict buried at the bottom of Stein’s sentiments on this and the matter subsequently discussed.

There was also a brief discussion about one specific (there were many, Republican and Democrat) criticism of Republican politicians like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal who supposedly do not accept evolution. I say supposedly because I haven’t heard Jindal opine on the matter (perhaps he has, but surely any uncertainty about that reflects the absolute FACT that the question is utterly irrelevant to national politics) and Palin has said specifically that evolution should be taught in schools. I agree that it should be, simply as a matter of understanding Western culture. But whatever any politician may say, let’s just bring the matter home. Though I think schools should teach evp;ution (though not as FACT in my school district), I explicitly do NOT believe in evolution as a sufficient explanation for all of life on earth. I will also say that I am not philosophically resistant to the possibility of evolution being an explanation for all earthly life. Yes, I believe in God and the truths of The Bible. But, I wouldn’t lose those beliefs if I thought the case for an evolutionary explanation was compelling. I simply don’t find it compelling at all but rather find it feeble as persuasion. I’m not forced to cling to it by a philosophical commitment to deny creation.

Stein of course finds the evolution case at least eminently questionable, for those of you whose heads have been so otherwise occupied as to be entirely unfamiliar with the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which Stein hosted and which laments the resistance of the public science establishment to even the SUGGESTION of the possibility of an intelligent designer of either life or the cosmos. If I say a (now non-existent – I’m not holding my breath) demonstrable truth of evolution would not disturb my faith in God, it appears the same cannot be said of the doctrinaire evolutionists as to their faith. That just affirms that for them the issue is not one of empirical data, but rather one of naturalist philosophical dogma: intelligent design is beyond their consideration because the idea challenges evolution. I don’t, but many noted scholars who advocate intelligent design, believe that design was expressed through evolution.

Anyway, I question Stein’s sincere conviction that there must be a huge stimulus and bailouts of large industries on the basis of my belief that the prods of a free market are part of God’s design, just as is biological life. Let’s stipulate some things: Ben Stein is intelligent and accomplished. I’m a disabled ex-salesman. They shouldn’t command it anyway, but in this case clearly I’m not pleading credentials. Just as in any other case, I only plead consideration of my words, themselves. I have heard Stein express several times that the very rich have the money to finance what are some worthy needs, and these specific actions are necessary to avoid economic pain. He’s correct about that, but that isn’t the entire story. However he might distinguish it, this is essentially the argument advanced by liberals to defend most all of the projects they find so urgent. In fact, when Medved pressed Stein to name a politician who agrees with his prescription, the only name that he mentioned was Barney Frank. Ouch!? Stein admitted creating the money would be inflationary, and it is so by definition. But, he said the effect was outweighed by the urgency of sparing the pain of the alternative, whether unemployment or tight credit.

After Stein’s schedule dictated his departure, Medved did say that he opposed those economic matters advocated by Stein because they reward failure and punish success, which is true. Medved also said that what rich people do with their money if they keep it, is invest it. Stein countered that there is enough money to invest out there, but it is held because of fear. He's right that money would be freed if fear were relieved. But incremental money above what some projects demand, is also invested. The only thing better for an economy than money invested is more money invested.

But there are more reasons that I believe inhere in human nature that those prescriptions are wrong. Specifically, I believe there is no prod to achieve success and/or to avoid failure like the very pain that Stein seeks to alleviate. I’m not saying that those who are experiencing difficulty should not be helped. They should be, by private individuals and organizations; but not by government. To make such aid the presumptive duty of government removes the urgency to succeed or avoid failure. On a micro scale, it’s the same reason that government bailouts and subsidies are not constructive things for large commercial organizations. This is a disincentive to achieve for one’s family, which both will reduce the general product of society and also preclude the pride and accomplishment of having done so. All of that in addition to the monetary inflation and generally weak monetary policy.

Just as Stein believes as I do that the biological world evinces a stunning complexity and elegance reflective of design, so these prods and rewards are inherent in human society, having been built into the system of human society by the very same designer. None of this is accidental or without purpose. As in most things, when government imposes itself upon the system it more often than not corrupts it. It not only corrupts but devalues the system: the true fulfillment and reward of work is diminished and the value of true charity is all but lost.

Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma

The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.

Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.

Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.

Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”

Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma

The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.

Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.

Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.

Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”