The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party
Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late
I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.
I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.
But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.
A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.
All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.
Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:
Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.
Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Keyes on color/re Obama
A friend passed me the response of Alan Keyes, to whom he had made an inquiry about the response of black Americans to Barack Obama’s election. I supported Keyes twice as a Republican. I remember in Keyes’ campaign in 1996 a few reports had broken out about Keyes’ handling of campaign personnel. Now in terms of trustworthy testimony and documentation, such reports were no more reliable than the detestable smears seen recently about Sarah Palin, now identified as falsehoods. Those Palin reports were accounted to “anonymous” sources within the McCain campaign, though it has been speculated that another potential 2012 Republican candidate might have motivation to drop such slander in the Palin pool. I can tell you that Mike Huckabee would not stoop to such a thing.
Anyway, at the time I said that you can be perceived as inflexible when you almost always think you are the smartest person in the conversation. In Keyes’ case, people might respond negatively because he almost always actually is the smartest person in the conversation. I sorely regret that Keyes was repeatedly spurned by a feckless Republican Party even while he maintained his fidelity to the party (actually its founding ideals) after I had abandoned the party in exasperation, finally in his 2004 campaign for the US Senate from Illinois against Barak Obama, where the Illinois Republican Party establishment that had invited Keyes abandoned him for the tall grass after media labeled him extreme. This year, The Republican Party nominated a demonstrable Republican apostate in John McCain, who has opposed the majority of the party any number of times, often holding out his “independence” as a virtue. Ironically this year it was Keyes who finally resigned the party while I returned after an 8-year absence. I supported McCain not because of his consistency (I have often called him “philosophically incoherent”), but because he has been historically strong where government has been weak all of my lifetime, even in The Republican Party after it gained complete control 8 years ago: on outrageous spending and government expansion.
I foresaw this failure when Bush was first nominated. I live in Texas, where he was governor. When Bush was elected in 2000 I said “Leviathan gets a night manager.” It surely did. Bush and a Republican Congress grew government at the steepest rate since Lyndon Johnson and The Great Society in the 60’s. Did this make him liked better by Democrats? Of course not: to them he’s evil. Some even called him an ideological extremist; a laughable proposition. Notwithstanding McCain’s infidelities, I also saw him as a decent and noble man. He was also pro-life. I questioned the stoutness and clarity of Bush’s weakly confessed pro-life confession: “I prefer life.” That suspicion was affirmed when, with a Republican Congress, two judges were put on the court that defended a partial-birth abortion ban as not violating a legitimate Roe v. Wade.
After his long experience of Republican abuse, Keyes employed his rhetorical skill to become increasingly shrill, even losing the nomination of The Constitution Party to Chuck Baldwin who is no mental match for Keyes. That’s not a knock against Baldwin as much as an acknowledgment of Keyes’ unique facility. Keyes finally accepted the nomination of the newly organized America’s Independent Party. I haven’t looked, but he surely finished 6th or worse with a vote in the tens or low 1000 thousands. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Michael Medved throws Keyes in with the rest of the third-party clowns, mocking his fervent style of speech. It’s very sad. Keyes fervency is genuine. So is the perplexity with which the general public meets it. In retrospect, I think even his high-flying rhetoric shot over the heads of the great majority of the public. But if The Republican Party had seized on the opportunity of a brilliant and articulate black man, Keyes probably would have maintained his feet and the first black president might have been a Republican 8 or 12 years ago., in which case, this past week’s potential disaster for the unborn, the economy and defense of America and its values might have been averted. Keyes wouldn’t have needed 96% of the black vote. 15 or 200% would probably have been adequate and just as decisive. Would Jesse Jackson have cried, then?
Keyes’ response is below.
Barak Obama is black like me only in the sense that we both have dark skin- I.e., a purely physical characteristic. To expect me to identify with him on that basis would require that I validate the concept of race ( i.e., grouping people based on physical characteristics). I have written and said over the years that I reject this concept, and that the only way to overcome racism is to reject the concept of race.
Because human beings are not stones, but persons, our communities are not the result of merely physical characteristics. The very idea of race in this sense is a modern lie tied to the dogma of evolution. I believe that human communities reflect the moral nature of our humanity. They are formed therefore by adherence to common moral principles, as that adherence is developed and reflected in the course of shared historical experience. Understood in this proper sense, Obama and I are not part of the same ethnic group. My heritage includes the experience of slavery, the moral sensibility to injustice and to the importance of respecting the premises of human dignity and freedom. Obama looks back to a heritage that probably includes forbears who were part of the Afro-Islamic groups of Africans who were active in the slave trade. By itself that might be of only superficial importance, but his views on the fundamental moral issues of the day (like the taking of innocent human life) mean that he rejects the premise of God-given moral equality for all men that I hold to be the true soul of the black American identity. The notion that I should take special pride in the election of such a man simply because of his skin color implies that I put the false and humanly contrived category of race above the category of common moral principle that is the true basis for human community. I do not and never will.
The tragic irony is that people whose feelings and reactions are shaped by racial solidarity implicitly validate the concepts that were the basis for racist views and discrimination. They implicitly reject the hope that Martin Luther King expressed that someday people would be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skins. As they do so, they destroy the moral substance that is the true and righteous legacy of the black American heritage in order to revel in the triumph of the very racism that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors. This is a desperately sad self-contradiction. I will be no part of it.
This quiet validation of the premise of racism is far from being a good thing . It betrays the suffering and nobility of all those black Americans who fought for justice not only for themselves, but for all, by appealing to the truth of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. This betrayal tips the scales of history back in the direction of regimes based on inequality, elitism and oppressive abuses of power.
I have by the way made these points many times, starting with the Senate race in Illinois.
Godspeed,
Alan
Anyway, at the time I said that you can be perceived as inflexible when you almost always think you are the smartest person in the conversation. In Keyes’ case, people might respond negatively because he almost always actually is the smartest person in the conversation. I sorely regret that Keyes was repeatedly spurned by a feckless Republican Party even while he maintained his fidelity to the party (actually its founding ideals) after I had abandoned the party in exasperation, finally in his 2004 campaign for the US Senate from Illinois against Barak Obama, where the Illinois Republican Party establishment that had invited Keyes abandoned him for the tall grass after media labeled him extreme. This year, The Republican Party nominated a demonstrable Republican apostate in John McCain, who has opposed the majority of the party any number of times, often holding out his “independence” as a virtue. Ironically this year it was Keyes who finally resigned the party while I returned after an 8-year absence. I supported McCain not because of his consistency (I have often called him “philosophically incoherent”), but because he has been historically strong where government has been weak all of my lifetime, even in The Republican Party after it gained complete control 8 years ago: on outrageous spending and government expansion.
I foresaw this failure when Bush was first nominated. I live in Texas, where he was governor. When Bush was elected in 2000 I said “Leviathan gets a night manager.” It surely did. Bush and a Republican Congress grew government at the steepest rate since Lyndon Johnson and The Great Society in the 60’s. Did this make him liked better by Democrats? Of course not: to them he’s evil. Some even called him an ideological extremist; a laughable proposition. Notwithstanding McCain’s infidelities, I also saw him as a decent and noble man. He was also pro-life. I questioned the stoutness and clarity of Bush’s weakly confessed pro-life confession: “I prefer life.” That suspicion was affirmed when, with a Republican Congress, two judges were put on the court that defended a partial-birth abortion ban as not violating a legitimate Roe v. Wade.
After his long experience of Republican abuse, Keyes employed his rhetorical skill to become increasingly shrill, even losing the nomination of The Constitution Party to Chuck Baldwin who is no mental match for Keyes. That’s not a knock against Baldwin as much as an acknowledgment of Keyes’ unique facility. Keyes finally accepted the nomination of the newly organized America’s Independent Party. I haven’t looked, but he surely finished 6th or worse with a vote in the tens or low 1000 thousands. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Michael Medved throws Keyes in with the rest of the third-party clowns, mocking his fervent style of speech. It’s very sad. Keyes fervency is genuine. So is the perplexity with which the general public meets it. In retrospect, I think even his high-flying rhetoric shot over the heads of the great majority of the public. But if The Republican Party had seized on the opportunity of a brilliant and articulate black man, Keyes probably would have maintained his feet and the first black president might have been a Republican 8 or 12 years ago., in which case, this past week’s potential disaster for the unborn, the economy and defense of America and its values might have been averted. Keyes wouldn’t have needed 96% of the black vote. 15 or 200% would probably have been adequate and just as decisive. Would Jesse Jackson have cried, then?
Keyes’ response is below.
Barak Obama is black like me only in the sense that we both have dark skin- I.e., a purely physical characteristic. To expect me to identify with him on that basis would require that I validate the concept of race ( i.e., grouping people based on physical characteristics). I have written and said over the years that I reject this concept, and that the only way to overcome racism is to reject the concept of race.
Because human beings are not stones, but persons, our communities are not the result of merely physical characteristics. The very idea of race in this sense is a modern lie tied to the dogma of evolution. I believe that human communities reflect the moral nature of our humanity. They are formed therefore by adherence to common moral principles, as that adherence is developed and reflected in the course of shared historical experience. Understood in this proper sense, Obama and I are not part of the same ethnic group. My heritage includes the experience of slavery, the moral sensibility to injustice and to the importance of respecting the premises of human dignity and freedom. Obama looks back to a heritage that probably includes forbears who were part of the Afro-Islamic groups of Africans who were active in the slave trade. By itself that might be of only superficial importance, but his views on the fundamental moral issues of the day (like the taking of innocent human life) mean that he rejects the premise of God-given moral equality for all men that I hold to be the true soul of the black American identity. The notion that I should take special pride in the election of such a man simply because of his skin color implies that I put the false and humanly contrived category of race above the category of common moral principle that is the true basis for human community. I do not and never will.
The tragic irony is that people whose feelings and reactions are shaped by racial solidarity implicitly validate the concepts that were the basis for racist views and discrimination. They implicitly reject the hope that Martin Luther King expressed that someday people would be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skins. As they do so, they destroy the moral substance that is the true and righteous legacy of the black American heritage in order to revel in the triumph of the very racism that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors. This is a desperately sad self-contradiction. I will be no part of it.
This quiet validation of the premise of racism is far from being a good thing . It betrays the suffering and nobility of all those black Americans who fought for justice not only for themselves, but for all, by appealing to the truth of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. This betrayal tips the scales of history back in the direction of regimes based on inequality, elitism and oppressive abuses of power.
I have by the way made these points many times, starting with the Senate race in Illinois.
Godspeed,
Alan
Friday, October 10, 2008
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube and his personal site .
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
Friday, September 12, 2008
About Gibson's Palin Interview and "The Bush Doctrine"
A friend posted Don't Poke the Bear? at his Blog, rekative to Charles Gibson's interview of Sara Palin and specifically about his question about "The Bush Doctrine." And I commented
Tony:
"The Bush Doctrine" is no textbook or dictionary certified term. It's how some popular culture commentators referred to Bush's explanation in the wake of 9/11 that he will act proactively if he perceiv3es a threat in another country. Some threw into that bag Bush's assertion that states that harbor terrorists or terrorist activity will be guilty and accoountable. But, there is no official definition.
I thought of the preemptive strike assertion, but I am a freak who watches this stuff full-time. I'm no longer even distracted by a career. With MS, I walk with a walker for a few hundred yards and haven't driven for a dozen years. I had stopped driving when I met you in Iowa in 1995.
For a definition to not have been on the tip of Palin's toungue is not a matter of any kind of illiteracy. Also, I am 51. Palin is 44, which means that she was a working mom in her 30's when Bush was explainibg himself.
All of this stuff about foreign policy experience, knowing world leaders and such is garbage. Joe Biden for instance, supposedly has decades of "foreign policy experience." So, he has decades of foreign policy experience being wrong. SO WHAT?
As I told a friend, what matters is character, sobriety, judgment, and an understanding of human nature. Anyone who has worked with human organizations, from businesses to civic groups to churches, is experienced with human nature. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They play with the same tactics. Some just play with bigger marbles.
Tony:
"The Bush Doctrine" is no textbook or dictionary certified term. It's how some popular culture commentators referred to Bush's explanation in the wake of 9/11 that he will act proactively if he perceiv3es a threat in another country. Some threw into that bag Bush's assertion that states that harbor terrorists or terrorist activity will be guilty and accoountable. But, there is no official definition.
I thought of the preemptive strike assertion, but I am a freak who watches this stuff full-time. I'm no longer even distracted by a career. With MS, I walk with a walker for a few hundred yards and haven't driven for a dozen years. I had stopped driving when I met you in Iowa in 1995.
For a definition to not have been on the tip of Palin's toungue is not a matter of any kind of illiteracy. Also, I am 51. Palin is 44, which means that she was a working mom in her 30's when Bush was explainibg himself.
All of this stuff about foreign policy experience, knowing world leaders and such is garbage. Joe Biden for instance, supposedly has decades of "foreign policy experience." So, he has decades of foreign policy experience being wrong. SO WHAT?
As I told a friend, what matters is character, sobriety, judgment, and an understanding of human nature. Anyone who has worked with human organizations, from businesses to civic groups to churches, is experienced with human nature. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. They play with the same tactics. Some just play with bigger marbles.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
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.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Experience Schmexperience!
It was predictable that the other side would try to light on the “experience” issue relative to Governor Sarah Palin, which they’ve reliably done. And frankly, for that reason, I expected her inevitable time was “not yet.” I was wrong about that, but am elated about the choice. I’ve known for a year that she was a positive force and as I’ve learned and seen more of her, she looks progressively better, now seemingly every day: from good to great to inevitable and now to terrific and unprecedentedly promising for the nation.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)