It seems to me that the steady decline of conservatism presents an opportunity for the Libertarian and Conservative movements to unite – if the Libertarians will agree to judiciously advance their agenda within the existing political and cultural framework. If they wish to be taken seriously, Libertarians must recognize that frenzied podium pounding and the organization of unsanctioned political caucuses are largely ineffective. It is fruitless to willfully ignore the existing political machine – or try to shout it down. The Liberty we seek will not be achieved through mindless anarchy. Revolution must be rooted in reasoned reform and must manifest through the public dissemination of information and the existing electoral process. We must persuade through the intelligent presentation of ideas.
Along these lines, Libertarians must also decide to respect reasonable, traditional socio-political norms and disavow the fringe groups who seem more concerned with their freedom to publicly drink, carouse, use drugs, and advertise their sexuality than with preserving and protecting the basic liberties granted by our Constitution. Every individual has the right to “Party On” if they wish, but those who truly seek to promote a civil agenda for the common good must carry themselves with dignity if they expect to be taken seriously. Good manners and courtesy are part of a civilized debate, and only by behaving well and honorably in public forums can we appeal to the Conscience of the nation.
The Libertarian values of Justice and Liberty are the highest political objectives we can seek. Too much government intervention — whether economic, cultural, or social – stifles freedom and corrupts justice. It must be opposed at every turn. Libertarians and Conservatives must unite and march in the direction of the Old Right which opposed the New Deal and favored political decentralization. We must resist increasing infringements on our daily lives. We must abhor the moralizing busybodies in D.C., adhere to Principle, and resist the tempatation to let minor differences divide and conquer us. It is essential that we come together and convince our fellow citizens that we should not rely on The State to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves. We must persuade our neighbors that our dependence upon the nebulous Government to solve all our problems is a losing (and very expensive) game.
In addition, atheist and anti-religious Libertarians must make peace with people of faith. To scoff and snicker at Judeo-Christian thought and the classical-liberal Greek intellectual traditions upon which this nation was built is foolish. What do these anti-God ranters think will replace a deep respect for the dignity of Man, the Golden Rule, and the Scales of Justice in the hearts and minds of men? The only viable political replacement for the deeply imbedded moral Code to which the faithful willingly adhere is either (1) a socialist State that sloppily engages in privileging or de-privileging its citizens through subjective lawmaking and then lulls them into calling it justice and fairness, or (2) a dictator or despot who arbitrarily rules through raw force. These are the very things Libertarians seek to avoid, diminish, or abolish so let us be sensible and realize that the values of Judeo-Christianity have more in common with the core values of Libertarianism than not. Both are rooted in a belief in the right of men to live and die Free and in an adherence to individual responsibility for one's Fate.
Stand by for a post on how Libertarians and Conservatives must find common ground on the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, policing and surveillance, immigration and border control, and preserving and protecting our political and economic interests around the globe.
Showing posts with label Political Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Theory. Show all posts
06 June 2008
Christianity and Libertarianism
My learning curve re: Libertarianism continues. Yesterday I found out that some of my new conservative-Libertarian friends are “godless.” Since we agree on issues of excessive taxation, education reform, intelligent energy policy, labor union reform, the decline of the GOP via the erosion of principles of liberty and conservatism, the lack of accountability and transparency in government, and the role a citizen and journalist ought to play in all of it...we shall in all likelihood continue to be agreeable birds in the proverbial nest. And as we join forces to promote truth-telling in civic life, I will continue to explore and entertain those Libertarian principles I think are sound. I really do not know what the political theorists have to say about Christian Libertarianism (is there such a thing?) but this is what I will say for myself, for now:
I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).
The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.
My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.
I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).
The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.
My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.
05 June 2008
great comment from OvercomingBias.com
From a post on yesterday's Overcomingbias.com:
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
30 May 2008
Homeland Security Under-Secretary Wants War Terminology Tweaked
Just when we thought the pious worship of Political Correctness couldn’t get any sillier, today’s Financial Times reports that a high ranking Homeland Security official wants us to stop using the phrase “War on Terror” because it’s being “interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam.” The suggestion surfaced in two memos including one from the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Words that Work and Words That Don’t.” One wonders who at the NCC hemorraged their cerebrum thinking up that dazzling heading? The other erudite memo, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, stated, “The terminology the U.S. government uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology.”
Question: Huh???
Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?
This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.
In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.
Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.
As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”
That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!
Question: Huh???
Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?
This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.
In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.
Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.
As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”
That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!
20 May 2008
U.S. Government: Interfering Busybody or Protector and Stablizer?
Anne of Idaho writes:
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
19 May 2008
Who Else Would Do It? Who Else Could?
In re: to my Bob Barr/Libertarian post, Anne of Idaho writes:
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
A Few Words on Bob Barr
Bob Barr has announced his desire for the Libertarian party nomination. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Barr was a Republican who served four terms in Congress (for Georgia) before losing in a 2002 primary fight against Rep. John Linder. A quick sum-up of his time in Congress: he voted Yes to the Iraq war, Yes to the prescription-drug program, and Yes to the Patriot Act.
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
14 May 2008
OMG
Well…I may not be ready for full-fledged Libertarianism, but I truly don’t know if I can remain a registered Republican very much longer. Two nights ago I said to a Very green sounding McCain fundraiser: “Tell the Bosses that when the GOP stops sliding to the Left, gets back to Goldwater-Reagan values, and helps nominate a decent Conservative candidate, I’ll gladly give more money. And tell them to stop sending out these stupid pretend surveys that a tree monkey could complete just so they can ask for more money for their lame campaign.” She was silent for a moment, and then laughed and said “ok,” and hung up. I respected her for that; I really did.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
07 May 2008
The Right Stuff
In re: to the debate on what now ought to happen in the GOP, check out Victor Davis Hanson's Corner post on the conservative principles that ought to be embraced and communicated going into November - and in my opinion, Forevermore. Gingrich was saying much the same this morning in his Human Events op-ed.
The GOP needs to dig in and stop the slide towards the Center, which every Republican president since Reagan has contributed to in his own special way. As Hanson rightly says, we ought to frame and present conservative principles in a more articulate way rather than cater to the perceived advantages of straddling the fence. We need a smarter, more pragmatic energy policy; a curbing or elimination of taxes of all kinds; strict fiscal discipline; constitutionalist federal judges; secure and/or closed borders; a careful and principled approach to national security and military efforts around the globe; and a strong commitment to ethics and transparency in all governmental corners. We should also eliminate the Dept of Education and leave it to the states, who ought to offer/allow quality public and private education according the demands of its residents.
The GOP needs to dig in and stop the slide towards the Center, which every Republican president since Reagan has contributed to in his own special way. As Hanson rightly says, we ought to frame and present conservative principles in a more articulate way rather than cater to the perceived advantages of straddling the fence. We need a smarter, more pragmatic energy policy; a curbing or elimination of taxes of all kinds; strict fiscal discipline; constitutionalist federal judges; secure and/or closed borders; a careful and principled approach to national security and military efforts around the globe; and a strong commitment to ethics and transparency in all governmental corners. We should also eliminate the Dept of Education and leave it to the states, who ought to offer/allow quality public and private education according the demands of its residents.
26 April 2008
Ta-Nehisi Coates: The Audacity of Bill Cosby's Black Conservatism
Just read this excellent piece on Bill Cosby in the May Atlantic Monthly. (I'm a big Cosby fan, from his stand-up days to his sitcoms to his conservative politics.)
Facts Are Stubborn Things
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -- John Adams
25 April 2008
The Hyphenization of America
What is the meaning and effect of the rampant spread of Hyphenization in our cultural dialogue? The variants are many: African-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, Italian-American, Hispanic-American, to name a few. Are these handles an attempt to carve out personal Identity? Are they a source or sign of ethnic pride? Yes, yes, and yes.
Unfortunately they are also sometimes employed as a means to set aside minorities who believe that in addition to respect for their ancestral origins, they deserve special treatment in the Now. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ramped-up discourse in some corners of the African-American "community." Their leaders – the Jesse Jacksons, Louis Farrakans, and Rev. Wrights of our podiums and pulpits – speak of (or scream about) the so-called modern-day subjugation of African-Americans. These trouble-mongerers tirelessly beat the drum of Entitlement, demanding the ear of our nation. And their angst-driven pounding is amplified by the presence of that tiny dash.
Their labels, like the hyphens within, serve more to separate than unite. As that-which-comes-after the Hyphen, the term “American” does not transmit as strongly as what precedes. This divides us into factions, unconnected and unable to relate to one another. As Roosevelt once said, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. A hyphenated American is not an American at all. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.''
Those words were spoken in 1915. Nearly one-hundred years later, the subject still bears examining. Is the American Melting Pot coagulating and separating as it simmers over the flame of socio-political fervor? Will the soup be spoiled? Perhaps not: if we turn down the heat, fish out the Hyphens, and gently stir.
Credits: Teddy Roosevelt’s words were read by Laura Ingraham on her radio talk show this morning. She wondered about the effects of Hyhenated Americans feeling greater solidarity with their countries of origin - whether African, European, Asian, or Hispanic – than with America.
Unfortunately they are also sometimes employed as a means to set aside minorities who believe that in addition to respect for their ancestral origins, they deserve special treatment in the Now. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ramped-up discourse in some corners of the African-American "community." Their leaders – the Jesse Jacksons, Louis Farrakans, and Rev. Wrights of our podiums and pulpits – speak of (or scream about) the so-called modern-day subjugation of African-Americans. These trouble-mongerers tirelessly beat the drum of Entitlement, demanding the ear of our nation. And their angst-driven pounding is amplified by the presence of that tiny dash.
Their labels, like the hyphens within, serve more to separate than unite. As that-which-comes-after the Hyphen, the term “American” does not transmit as strongly as what precedes. This divides us into factions, unconnected and unable to relate to one another. As Roosevelt once said, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. A hyphenated American is not an American at all. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.''
Those words were spoken in 1915. Nearly one-hundred years later, the subject still bears examining. Is the American Melting Pot coagulating and separating as it simmers over the flame of socio-political fervor? Will the soup be spoiled? Perhaps not: if we turn down the heat, fish out the Hyphens, and gently stir.
Credits: Teddy Roosevelt’s words were read by Laura Ingraham on her radio talk show this morning. She wondered about the effects of Hyhenated Americans feeling greater solidarity with their countries of origin - whether African, European, Asian, or Hispanic – than with America.
24 April 2008
What Is Conservatism?
An imaginary reader e-mails in and asks about Conservatism. What is it, what good does it do, and who says so? Excellent questions, all. To answer I will go at once to the writings of Russell Kirk who reminded us that conservatism is not an Ideology. As Kirk once wrote, "there is no Holy Writ, no Das Kapital and no Thirty-Nine Articles to provide and preserve conservative dogma." It is perhaps as Kirk once stated: conservatism is a state of mind, a type of character, and a way of looking at the civil and social order. A conservative person is one who values historical and permanent things...yet also knows that change can be worthy (and sometimes, ironically, a means of preservation). Conservatives believe there exists an enduring moral order and that certain aspects of human nature are also constants. Sometimes the twain shall meet, and sometimes, Not. Both harmony and disharmony are therefore indicated – but Harmony can better be attained and maintained when the fact of fallible men is remembered, not denied or ignored. Conservatives believe that Utopia, the land toward which our well-intentioned and left-leaning Ideologue friends ever-sail, cannot exist here on earth. We must do what we can, of course - but what that "What" is turns the wheel that will help us cruise happily on, or steer us all into the rocks.
08 April 2008
One Cosmos: excerpts on WFB
Today's One Cosmos blog is my pick for Read of the Day today, for many reasons, including a nice mention of WFB. Here are some (edited) excerpts:
[WFB] was a man who incarnated American ideals by utilizing liberty to actualize his potential in the most extraordinarily diverse ways, but always in the context of the "higher we" of the "American spirit," so to speak. It was not individualism for its own sake, but in order to "become" everything that his Creator intended for him to be, which is the purpose and vector of our liberty.
...And this is indeed the broad purpose of the spiritual life -or let us just say "life": to become what you already are. The purpose can never be to become what the group wishes for you to be, for this is slavery, not liberty.
...Classical liberalism enshrines a sort of liberty that implicitly promotes the use of it for higher ends, since it is a "gift" given for that purpose.
Read the whole post here (scroll to the top of the page).
[WFB] was a man who incarnated American ideals by utilizing liberty to actualize his potential in the most extraordinarily diverse ways, but always in the context of the "higher we" of the "American spirit," so to speak. It was not individualism for its own sake, but in order to "become" everything that his Creator intended for him to be, which is the purpose and vector of our liberty.
...And this is indeed the broad purpose of the spiritual life -or let us just say "life": to become what you already are. The purpose can never be to become what the group wishes for you to be, for this is slavery, not liberty.
...Classical liberalism enshrines a sort of liberty that implicitly promotes the use of it for higher ends, since it is a "gift" given for that purpose.
Read the whole post here (scroll to the top of the page).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
