Black and Red

"Anxiety Builds"

2012-02-12T22:27:00.004-05:00

“Anxiety Builds”

By: J. Hunter

Elections have always made menervous—primaries, caucuses, generals, specials, off-years—every kind ofelection where I feel invested in the outcome. I was even a nervous wreckleading up to the 2010 mid-term election in which “my team” was predicted todominate. “What if the pundits are wrong,” I thought. “What if Republicanenthusiasm wanes by Election Day?” As it were, Republicans did just fine in2010—set a record, even. As we ramp up for the 2012 Presidential contest,though, my nervousness has returned, and I see no comfort in sight.

Universal Negativity

Nothing has depressed me more aboutthis race than the acute negativity. Every single Republican who ran for thenomination (save Herman Cain) owns some of the blame. Rick Perry buried himselfby focusing on attacking Mitt Romney. Romney revisited his 2008 dark side withsharp, negative attacks on Newt Gingrich, who responded with cartoonish,ridiculous negative ads aimed at Romney. Ron Paul went after Rick Santorum andRick Santorum attacks Romney relentlessly in debates. In the beginning of therace, Tim Pawlenty diminished himself when he sparred with Romney over his “Obam-neyCare” comments, and when he and Michele Bachmann traded jabs over some esoteric,Minnesota-centric issue. Bachmann at another point tried to resurrect her dyingcampaign by attacking Perry over a state-mandated HPV vaccination.

Republican pundits, andRepublicans in general, intensified the negativity with arguments about eachcandidate’s conservative bona fides and with calls to dump the 8 originalcontenders with a totally new field. This cynicism has bloodied the noses ofevery Republican candidate and appears to be killing the enthusiasm to replacePresident Barack Obama in November.

Republican Apathy

Overshadowing the horserace aspectis the extremely low voter turnout in this primary election season. RyanHobart, speaking on behalf of the Missouri secretary of state’s office, calledthe turnout in Missouri “near the lowest, if not the lowest.”[1]Tyler Francke writes that the Taney County Clerk, Donna Neely, originallypredicted a 30% voter turnout. The actual turnout was 12.5%.

Voter turnout was down 14% inFlorida, 26% in Nevada, 6% in Colorado, 23% in Minnesota and 58% in Missouri,the Los Angeles Times reports.[2]

So far, there is littleexplanation for such low turnout. Steven Schier, a political scientist atCarleton College in Minnesota, believes that it stems from Republicandissatisfaction with the field.[3] MarkBarabak, writing for the Los Angeles Times, blames the aforementionednegativity on the decline. Michael McDonald, a George Mason Universityprofessor, claims that there is no need for Republicans to fret about lowturnout—yet.

I’m still fretting.

Nominee Roulette

Finally (for now), thefrontrunner game has lost its luster. Almost every nominee has spent time inthe frontrunner position, much to the disadvantage of the eventual nominee, butmuch to pleasure of Sarah Palin.[4](Will she make a last minute bid? Myanxiety builds.)

I part ways with Mrs. Palin onthis point because the long primary has not clarified the nominees, as sheclaims, but has instead exposed their weaknesses as they work feverishly to dethronethe other.

Also, the longer this primary dragson, the less money donors will have to spend for the general election. Rallyingaround the most conservative candidate who can win in November, at a quickerpace than we have been previously, will greatly benefit Republican prospects.

To make matters worse, PresidentObama’s approval ratings have improved on the economy and with regards togeneral malaise.[5][6] Hepolls better than all of the 4 remaining Republican challengers nationally.[7][8] Hismonetary war chest is massive, and will only grow.

I am not predicting the electionlost, but I am beseeching an end to the negativity (which, I believe fomentsthe volatility).

Please, for the Party’s sake andfor the sake of everyone who must interact with me until November.

ArticleSources:

[1] http://bransontrilakesnews.com/news_free/article_c1c489a2-542f-11e1-b302-0019bb2963f4.html

[2] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-2012-turnout-20120212,0,1235967.story

[3] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/gop-primary-turnout-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-gap-/1

[4] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/sarah-palin-rocks-cpac-embracing-a-long-primary/

[5] http://www.gallup.com/poll/152543/Obama-Economic-Approval-Rating-Improves.aspx

[6] http://www.gallup.com/poll/152570/Satisfaction.aspx

[7] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE81514720120206

[8] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Photo Sources: "Anxious Man" from http://www.uncanxietyclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/anxiety4.203195849.jpg; "Negative Ad Cartoon" from http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/stein/Stei103108B.gif; "Roulette Wheel" from http://clubroulette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/play-roulette-game.jpg

"Guaranteeing Obama's Presidency"

2012-01-19T19:42:00.001-05:00

“Guaranteeing Obama’s Presidency”

By: J. Hunter

Though certain indicators insistthe opposite, the Republican brand has troubles. Astronomical deficit spendingand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) served as theclarion call that led to the historic 2010 election which outshined theRepublican Revolution of 1994. That election’s momentum can be seen in the variousGallup polls that indicate that Americans are increasingly leaning moreconservative.[1] Thatsaid, though, Republican momentum appears to be cooling—understandably so.

Americans, looking to replace the feckless, prodigal, Democrat Party in 2012 are faced with the frighteningalternative—a Republican Party that, thus far, shows signs of acute internalstrife, appears more interested in the political advantages of regaining thepresidency and demonstrates a capricious commitment to its own principles. Atthis point, four men are currently vying to lead the Republican Party and thenation. Instead of instilling confidence in the brand and inspiring Americansto vote Republican, though, the GOP frontrunners are damaging their reputationsand the Party name immeasurably—unquestionably to the benefit of the sittingDemocratic president.

While this article will focusprimarily on two frontrunners, every Republican candidate shares in the blame.

Mitt Romney

Mr. Romney shot first—atPresident Barack Obama—with an ad so dishonest that he hurts his credibility bydefending it.[2] The adfeatures Mr. Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re goingto lose.” The obvious implication is that the Democrats know that the economyis in such bad shape that they cannot talk about it as a campaign issue. Whatis not so obvious—what is actually obscured—is that Mr. Obama was not talkingabout the Democrats. He was quoting John McCain’s campaign. The quote in Romney’sad is literally taken out of context.

Romney has a history of playingdirty—a history that is not worthy of him. This kind of politicking is exactlywhat made it difficult for me to support Romney in 2008, and others will feelsimilarly if he wins the nomination and uses these kinds of tactics againstPresident Obama in the general election. That is because regardless of whetheror not one likes Obama’s policies, Americans tend to like him personally. Furthermore,turning the first black president into a victim deserving of defense against“the rich, white Republican who isn’t playing fair” is a recipe for electoraldisaster. It will guarantee that Mr. Obama keeps his job—a disturbing prospect.

Mr. Romney’s dishonest campaignstrategies are not reserved exclusively for his main Democratic rival. In this2012 presidential campaign, he annoyed his opponents, most notably NewtGingrich and Rick Santorum, by not speaking out against the false messagesadvanced by Restore Our Future, a super PAC that endorses him. Evidencesupports that Romney is intimately connected with this group—a group he claimshe cannot control, answer for or influence. Contrary to his claims, though, LosAngeles Times reporter Maeve Reston writes that while Mr. Romney, in a debate,admitted a desire to see super PACs disappear, he also admits to raising moneyfor Restore Our Future, and claims that he actually supports super PACs.[3](Classic Romney)

Mr. Romney’s apparent comfortwith the dark underbelly of American politics is almost as disconcerting as hisinability to avoid self-sabotaging squabbles with his opponents. When NewtGingrich lashed out at Romney, attacking his private sector dealings andlinguistic prowess, he hurt himself.[4]Romney, though, missed the opportunity to appear “above the fray,” presidentialand classy. He neglected to use Gingrich’s attacks as an opportunity to defendcapitalism and his own record at Bain Capital. Giving in, again, to hispenchant for squabbling, Romney added to the negative environment, firing back atGingrich (again, via proxy Restore Our Future) with an ad that attacks theformer House Speaker personally.[5]

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich’s appeal toconservatives is his intellect, involvement in the conservative movement, rhetoricand dogmatic refusal to run a negative campaign. This approach bore fruit, somuch so that he, at one point, held a 20 point lead over Mr. Romney in SouthCarolina.[6]

Frustrated by media attention toinconsistencies in his record, and by the attacks from Restore Our Future inIowa, Gingrich countered, via super Pac proxy, and financed a $5 million movie called“When Mitt Romney Came to Town.”[7]The movie, a 28-minute hit piece, spreads lies about Mr. Romney’s businessexperience and indicts capitalism itself—a move antithetical to theconservative message. Calvin Woodward, writes for the Associated Press, “[WhenMitt Romney Came to Town] blames Romney for company shutdowns he had no part inand twists interviews with laid-off factory workers to convey resentmentsagainst him that didn’t exist.”[8]

Gingrich’s next move was torelease an ad criticizing Romney for speaking French—a move meant to appeal toa xenophobic (or at least anti-French) strain within the conservative movement.[9]

The tactics did not work. Infact, Gingrich’s reputation, though somewhat salvageable, is permanentlydamaged. Polls in South Carolina flipped, making Romney the 14 point frontrunner.[10]

This Machiavellian war is bad forParty unity. It’s bad strategy looking forward to the General Election. It’sbad for the Republican Party brand. To make matters worse is that the snipingcontinues.[11][12]

Many conservatives, includingmyself, dismissed the notion that there was a staunch division in theRepublican Party. There is no “Tea Party Wing” that is ideologically differentfrom the mainstream Republican Party.

Why should there be, especiallythis time around?

While 2008 was marked withcandidates of ideological differences (Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabeeand Fred Thompson), this year’s field agrees much more than it disagrees. That ideologicalsolidarity used to be a strong defense against the Democrat’s tactic ofdepicting the GOP field as a bunch of cantankerous opportunists. The sickeninginfighting, though, plays right into the Democrat’s plan—a plan that culminatesin hurting Republicans and securing Barack Obama’s reelection.

ArticleSources:

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/mitt-romney-obama-ad_n_1110884.html

[3] http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-defends-raising-funds-for-super-pac-20120117,0,3122421.story

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/newt-gingrich-attack-ad-war-gives-mitt-romney-french

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT2h9TEXePY

[6] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC_News-Marist_Poll_Florida_December_2011.pdf

[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE

[8] http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-alls-not-well-king-bain-185957857.html

[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ

[10] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary

[11] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/18/gingrich-responds-to-romney-attack-thats-just-stupid/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[12] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/18/romney-delivers-a-low-blow-to-gingrich/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Photo Sources: All pictures from www.townhall.com

"The Free Exchange"

2012-01-06T14:42:00.000-05:00

“The Free Exchange”

Conservatism’s strength emanatesfrom its penchant for robust debate. “The Free Exchange” is a series ofarticles aimed at highlighting and broadening the debate at Black and Red. Whenyou comment on essays you read at this site, I will respond to you via thisblog series. If you wish to send an email for consideration in an upcoming“Free Exchange” article, please email me at blkandred@gmail.com and write “TheFree Exchange” and the title of the article you are commenting on in thesubject heading. Hopefully, the free exchange of ideas will prove beneficial toreaders and participants. Thank you for reading and thank you so much forcommenting.

-J. Thomas Hunter

This week, Anonymous addresses:“Explaining Deadlock.” BJ comments on “The Free Exchange,” and expanded hisposition in an email response to “O-Mitt Romney.”

Anonymous’ comments are in white.Mine are in green.

This is better, but stillelevates advocacy over argument in some fairly obvious ways. First there is theimagery of "millions of American voters" joining you in your opinion.Surely that phrase was chosen only for its imagery. You and I both know thatthere are equal or greater millions of such people who believe Obama's proposalswould benefit the economy.

Second is the alteration of language. My argument was premised on what mostDemocrats "believe," you chose to address what Democrats"pretend" to believe.

Third is the lack of evenhandeness in assigning burdens of proof. You count asa strike against me that I cannot "prove" that Republicans aremotivated to deadlock by electoral concerns. But we are both arguing motive.You cannot "prove" that core convictions are the motivating force.

As for the evidence: In February 2008, 165 of 198 House Republicans supportedPresident Bush's economic stimulus package. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll042.xml).That package included $42 billion in direct federal spending. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8973/hr5140pgo.pdf).How many of the current House Republicans were part of that 165? 113(approximately) including John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/08/republicans_stimulus.html).What does this prove? That Republicans, specifically these current HouseRepublicans, have not "always" resisted federal spending to boost theeconomy. Of course, you have already set yourself up rhetorically to deal withevidence such as this. You can simply say that Obama's proposals are not thesame "kind" of federal spending that 165 House Republicans voted forin 2008.

Thankyou, Anonymous, for the response.

Going inorder, I’d like to begin by explaining my language choice. Yes, the imagery of“millions of American voters” is an attempt to augment my position bydemonstrating that I am expressing the sentiments of a large swath of people,rather than me simply speaking for myself. That said, as we are subordinatingadvocacy to argument, where advocacy is closer to wanton dishonesty andargument nearer honest, dispassionate reason, I do not believe that I am inviolation. There is the truth—that millions of American voters, in fact, doagree that the Democrat’s fiscal policies will not substantially improve theeconomy. I was very careful not to say something like, “most Americans,” or“the majority of Americans” agree with me. So, in my defense, the language wasnot chosen “only” for its imagery, as you charge, but its imagery factored intomy decision to use it.

Ironically,you go on to engage in the very advocacy that you accuse of me by stating that“You and I both know that there are equal or greater millions of such peoplewho believe Obama’s proposals would benefit the economy.” I not only vehementlydisagree with your assertion that there are indeed “equal or greater millions”of these people, but I therefore do not “know” that to be so.

To yoursecond point, you’re right. I changed the terms from “Democrats believe” toDemocrats “pretend to believe.” Let me reassure you, though, that this was notdone as an intentional sleight, but rather it betrayed my biases. On my end ofthe fight, the conservative Republican end of the fight, the Democrats couldnot possibly truly believe that Republicans are acting purely out of politicalcalculation and not on their principles. In reality, there very well may beDemocrats who believe that to be so.

Yourthird point is interesting. On the one hand, I stand by my statement that amotive is “impossible to prove.” We, sitting outside of the situation inWashington, cannot assign motives to political actors. This is not just basedon the obvious limitations—not knowing John Boehner or Dick Durbin personally. Evenif we did know them personally, I argue, our own motivations can sometimes evenelude us. First level analysis, drawing conclusions based on perceivedpersonality traits, leads to erroneous conclusions.

Ex: DidMr. Jones kick the paper boy because the paper boy too often threw thenewspaper through Mr. Jones’ bedroom window? Maybe he kicked the paper boybecause he was angered by something in the news?

On theother hand, what I said cannot stand on its own. We may draw connectionsbetween a person’s circumstances or proclamations and his actions, and fromthat assume motivations that may or may not be correct.

Ex: Mr.Jones kicked the paper boy because his wife bet him $10 that he would never dosomething so bold, and he wanted to prove her wrong.

Maybe myanalogy stinks, but I hope it’s clear that it may be “virtually” impossible toascribe motives, even though we try to do so every day. What would police workbe if we did not try to connect dots between motives and possible suspects?What would become of historical analysis?

Thatsaid, I consider these specific examples that we’re discussing to be mostly trivial.I reject the suggestion that I am somehow being dishonest (or acting as anadvocate) because of these language choices. It’s not a sin—not even anargumentation sin, in my view. What I take issue with, as far as advocacy overargumentation is concerned, is dishonesty that prevents overcoming stasis. Itake issue with blatant inconsistencies that appear to be promoted simply to“win” a particular argument. There are many issues, especially in politics,about which honest people can disagree. The discussion with my parents that Iillustrated in “Explaining Deadlock” did not qualify.

Inclosing, I’d like to address what you put forth as evidence proving thatRepublicans, including about 113 of the current House Republicans, have notalways resisted federal spending to boost the economy. I completely agree withyou. In February of 2008, far too many Republicans supported George W. Bush’sinane stimulus package—a stimulus package that by all accounts failed tostimulate the economy. However, many Republican voters were very upset by this.I hated it, most of my Republican friends hated it, and we hated it for theright reasons. You’ll note that 2008 saw a lot of disillusioned Republicansvoting for Barack Obama or saving their campaign donation dollars for anotheryear. That was because of policies like these that go against conservativeinstincts and principles.

Furthermore,that stimulus did not work. Why would the 113 Republicans support Obama’sfederal stimulus program when Bush’s failed to produce results in the immediatepast?

There is,also, one more important thing to note about your argument: the circumstanceswere quite different. To call for massive federal spending when the deficit isbetween 2% and 4% of GDP is bad enough. Considering the massive amount ofspending that has taken place since then, and its failure to rectify thestruggling economy, there is more than enough reason to be reticent to continuedown that path.

I do notsee the evidence that you have produced as proving what you intend it to.

Ofcourse, I encourage you to stay engaged with me. I enjoy these exchanges.

BJ’s comments are in blue. Mineare in green.

“The Free Exchange”

Joe,

Phenomenal job in all your comments. I loved reading all of them. I've beenmeaning to write you about this for a while. Your following words have beenringing in my head ever since I've read them. Particularly the following aboutmy assertion that the GOP has been moving to the left:

"On core issues—issues that matter to conservatives and to the country—theRepublican Party has remained steadfast and principled. I see no leftward driftor flirtation with liberalism.

In addition to that point, you and I also differ as to whom we should embracein the party. I am a big tent Republican, one who supports moderates,libertarians, traditionalists, and the reddest red meat that can win. If wepurge Republicans who are not ideologically pure, then we become theDemocrats—a party that will not allow dissention, individuality or fresh ideas(even misguided ones). We must always encourage debates and new ideas. We needto debate our own—folks like Mark Kirk—and let them know that this party is aconservative one.

Finally, I am a believer that we should not expect our politicians to be cookiecutters. A Republican in Maine will not holdthe same views as one in Mississippi.The states consist of different people who demand different policies of theirpoliticians."

I think I'm coming around to your point of view on my claim of the GOP movingto the left. These arguments you make are so true and powerful, they ring truthwith me. I'm going to chew on it and let it percolate in my head.

Thank youfor commenting, BJ.

I alwaysappreciate our exchanges, and I hope you know that as you chew on my opinions,I very much do the same thing with yours.

Thisprinciple that Republicans vary in style, tone and sometimes in policy,depending on the state, is what helped usher me into the Republican fold.Perhaps it is why I hold it so close to my heart.

I wasonce so liberal that I was torn between voting for Al Gore or Ralph Nader in ageneral election. I definitely did not come over to the Republican side all atonce. Had Republicans believed in purity tests, I would never have been able tojoin. Instead, I was tolerated as a liberal Republican until slowly I moved towhere I am today.

Now, I’mnot saying that folks like Olympia Snowe will see the light, but what I amsaying is that new Republicans—new recruits, if you will—must be able to seethemselves being a part of this movement.

Though wemay all have different views on one thing or another, as long as we are stillheading toward the same conservative goal, we should be comforted.

Thanksagain, BJ.

“O-Mitt Romney”

Joe,

This is the second issue (the first being my claim of the GOP has been movingto the left) where you are turning me towards your point of view. Frankly, it doesn't matter anymore since Cain has dropped out of therace. But I've been accepting Romney as our nominee. Between Romneyand Gingrich, it's an easy choice for Romney since Newt is not electable. Here's a few comments to keep things in perspective of some of the things thatyou said.

Regarding your assertion why Republicans seemed so hot on Romney in 2008 butnot so this year
In 2008, Romney was a relative unknown and he said he held all theseconservative positions. But even back then there were questions about hisconsistency of his positions. It was pretty certain that McCain was goingto get the nomination quite early on and so the conservative base of the partygrabbed on to the next viable candidate who said all the right things sinceGiuliani had dropped out. (82% or not, McCain was liberal on many issuessuch as global warming, illegal immigration, no drilling for ANWR, was againstnuclear power in his past, and very weak on economic issues. He was theanti-Bush. As you know, the National Journal rated McCain as 59%conservative on economic matters, 54% on social issues, and 56% on foreignpolicy issues.) But since 2008, Romney's been under closer examinationand his left-leaning past has been revealed. Especially on THE majorsubject of Obamacare. And so there is a reason for the conservatives tohave a different view of Romney since 2008.

Thank youfor your comments BJ. I think that the best way for me to address your pointsthoroughly is by answering them individually.

On theissue of Romney, it is true that he was not as well-known as he is today, but,considering his viability and the fact that very thoughtful, prominent,conservatives supported him (like Hugh Hewitt, for example), I do not seeignorance as a reason why he was more popular last time around than he is thistime. Information about candidates is not difficult to find, and if onebelieves that there is an establishment media hell-bent on discreditingconservatism, then this establishment media would have savored the opportunityto discredit Romney.

Iactually think that the major difference between 2008 and 2012 is thatRepublicans are looking for something different. In 2008, Republicans,themselves, were seeking distance from the conservative brand. We wanted acandidate who read “pragmatist not ideologue.” This time around, we wantsomeone who reads “ideologically pure.” Romney, therefore, may have been theright man for 2008, but not because of his conservative bona fides. By thatsame token, he is struggling this time around.

As forMr. McCain, I understand where you are coming from. I was unaware that theNational Journal rated Mr. McCain so poorly, but I am curious how they came tosuch a different result from the American Conservative Union.

Somethingto consider though, is that while the National Journal is a prestigious D.C.publication, I’m not sure that it is a better judge of conservatives than theACU which was started by Bill Buckley, hosts annual CPAC conventions and workstirelessly to advance conservatism through donations to campaigns andpublications. These are all things that National Journal does not (cannot) do. Isay this to argue that the ACU would not undermine its own mission by advancinga “fake” conservative.

Though McCainand I do not always come to the same conclusions, I am proud that he is one ofus. First, he’s been through the good and bad times with us and has remainedloyal. Remember, he had the opportunity to leave the party and become aDemocrat many times. In 2004, John Kerry approached him about being his runningmate. McCain declined. After the sweeping 2006 Democrat victory, he could haveleft the party. He didn’t. McCain has never taken the easy route, and I think thatfor outsiders he helps make the case for intellectual diversity in theRepublican Party. For Republicans, he represents an ambassador to the otherside when compromise is needed—and compromise is often necessary.

I don’tmean to be self-referential, but I’ve looked back at my articles from 2008,during that presidential campaign, and in articles like “GOP Malaise” and “RealRINOs” I made much the same points about Romney that I made about McCain. Moreinteresting to me, though, is that Republicans attack this current field andthe front runners the same way that they did in 2008 too. I wonder if this isjust a trait of ours.

Your Charge of the REAL Reagan's Liberal Positions
You are right that Reagan certainly did not have a 100% conservativeperfect record. I agree that virtually no one does. However,calling Reagan a "union boss" sounds a bit misleading since thatmakes him sounds pro-union on those issues. He may have been the presidentof the Screen Actors Guild in the 1940's and early 1950's. But he neveradvocated some leftist, entitlement strike or any other such left-wing positionon union issues. In fact, he gave up names of suspected communists to theUSgovernment while he was the president of the SAG. Pretty conservativethere. Also during his presidency when the Air Traffic Controllers wenton strike, he wasn't sympathetic to them at all, as he fired all of them whowent on strike. That's the strongest stance against unions to date. Loved that move. That's guts.

Also to put it into perspective,you and Medved are correct. Reagan did sign the "TherapeuticAbortion Act" in 1967 while he was the governor of California which was very pro-choice and itresulted in an incredible number of abortions being performed. But Reaganwas certainly not pro-choice. He was only a governor for four months atthe time he signed that law and he was quite confused, fatigued, and conflictedabout this law. The following article articulates quite well his strugglethrough this bill and how he mistakenly signed it.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_ronald_reagan_and_abortion_in_1967
Reagan has since stated what a mistake it was to sign it and said if he hadmore experience in office of governor, he wouldn't have signed it. He hasbeen adamantly pro-life. He has been clear about his conservative stanceon this issue and he even proposed a US Constitutional Amendment that wouldhave prohibited abortion except in the case when the mother's life was indanger during his presidential campaign. All the pro-life people backed Reaganas president as a result.

In regard to the Simpson-MazzoliAct, it's true Reagan gave amnesty to certain seasonal illegal workers andthose illegals who were continuously in the US before 1982. However backthen, the number of illegals to receive amnesty was under 3 million unliketoday where the number has grown to around 12 million. Plus theSimpson-Mazzoli Act law made it illegal for employers to hire or recruitillegals as workers. Hardly a pro-illegal immigration, leftist law. The intent back then was to allow the then illegals to stay and stop the futureillegals from coming in. It was an acknowledgement of the feds not havingdone more to stop illegals up to that point. And so they allowed the illegalsat the time of 1986 to stay but the intent was to stop the future wave ofillegals. The feds have obviously failed at that goal in the biggest waypossible. But Reagan was granting both compassion at allowing illegals to"come out of the shadows" and becomes citizens while still standingfirm against illegal immigration by stopping the incentive for the illegals tocome here in the first place.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/110686b.htm
And so he was against illegal immigration. But the illegal problem wasnowhere near the titanic proportion that it is today. I doubt PresidentReagan today would take the position of granting amnesty to 12 millionillegals.

I am actually old enough to remember Reagan. I remember that he wasconstantly and endlessly portrayed as an "extremist" due to howconservative he was on virtually all the issues. The media and popularculture (Mostly leftist) hated him, as they portrayed him as a senile andstupid old man who was dangerously playing around with the nuclearswitch. He was relentlessly demonized due to his conservativeness.

“Unionboss” is certainly not the best term to use. I should have been more thoughtfulabout that.

Apartfrom his giving up names of suspected communists to the government, though, Ido not know that he was a conservative union president. He served as presidentof SAG during his years as a Democrat. Perhaps you know (I don’t) what headvocated for as SAG president.

I thankyou for commending the Reagan abortion article to me, as I am much happier withthis view of Reagan’s stance on abortion than with my previous view of hisabortion stance. I will, though, be weighing it against other articles that don’tview his signing the legislation as rosy as the author does. Ultimately, it maybe difficult to decide what Reagan’s true feelings on abortion were vs. hispolitical posture. I suspect, though, that he was not “pro-choice.”

Finally, Ionly partially agree with you regarding Reagan’s record on Simpson-Mazzoli. Iknow that, like the tax deal he made with the Democrats that turned sour, thenegative consequences were not what he had expected, but conservatives warnedReagan not to support it. 192 House Representatives led by Republicanrepresentative Bill McCollum, fought the amnesty provision in Simpson-Mazzoli.They were obviously unsuccessful, and Reagan signed the bill into law. Hecannot, today, be absolved of his responsibility in attracting the 12 million illegalimmigrants to the U.S.—telling illegals that it the regular routes tocitizenship are for suckers, and making the illegal immigration problem worse.

Unlike these Reagan who had solid conservative credentials and history (Andthus one could easily trust Reagan's conservative instincts), Romney has nosuch conservative credentials nor instincts. That's why the questionsabout Romney's commitment to the conservative values are legitimate.

However despite all this that I write, I certainly see your point of your article. The question is whether Romney, if in the White House, would turn into someform of a RINO to the extent that it would really hurt the credibility of theRepublican/conservative movement. It sounds like you don't have thatworry. You may be right and maybe people like me are worrying fornothing. This is the main worry that I picked up from DennisPrager. But if you don't have that kind of worry, maybe he will be justfine. I see now that you are concentrating more on defeating Obama sincethat's obviously the most important and ultimate battle in front of us.

There is a deep desire for perfection in a candidate in terms of both beingconservative in all their positions and electability. And I can see whereyou can get tired of the criticisms of people like Romney as whining andlooking for a fantasy figure that doesn't exist. I'm sure Rubio and PaulRyan have their set of issues as well. I am certainly ready to embraceRomney with all his flaws and turn our attention towards going up againstObama. I hope it's Romney and not Gingrich.

All of this is a moot point since Cain is gone. It's now Romney ornothing. If Gingrich gets the nod, I will be so depressed. I knowof many people who are in the middle or moderate left-leaning who are disappointedwith Obama and would vote for Romney but not Gingrich. I'd love to hearyour thoughts on Gingrich. Thanks for another great article.

My point,which I have not made clearly enough, is that the apologies for Reagan’smistakes are made today—post Reagan era—posthumously. Did these defenses existwhen Reagan was running for president and in the presidency? Would thesearticles exist if he were running today? Most importantly, why should I believethese apologies but not those of Republicans running today with records thatmore closely mirror Reagan’s?

MittRomney is not a conservative legend—yet. If he wins the presidency and becomesone, though, believe that there will be books exonerating his decision toimplement the state-run health care system in Massachusetts, but advisingagainst it being placed upon the other 49 states. There will be tomes writtenabout how he upheld a conservative value in federalism. The fact that there isso much dissent about his commitment to conservative principles will be pushedinto the background just as conservatives who questioned Reagan’s commitment toconservatism are hardly remembered.

Youargue, for example, that the media portrayed Reagan as an extremist because ofhis conservative views. I guarantee you that if Mr. Romney becomes the nominee,he will be portrayed by the media as an extremist conservative too. That’s justthe media template, and does not necessarily come from a place of truth, butrather a dislike (or severe hatred) of Republicans. The other thing to rememberis that Ronald Reagan was not universally liked among Republicans during thetime of his presidency either. There were many conservatives who thought himtoo soft, profligate and not conservative enough. One of those Republicans leftthe party and ran against him in a third party—one that he believed representedtrue conservative values. That Republican has since returned to the party andis running for president right now—Dr. Ron Paul.

Note too,that many conservatives hated Reagan’s inner sanctum. In 1976, when he lost toGerald Ford, he was running with a moderate Republican running mate, RichardScweiker. When he finally ran and won, his running mate was a very moderateRepublican, George H.W. Bush. His chief of staff was the very moderate, JamesBaker.

Reaganhad his conservative critics. He was not the Reagan that modern conservativesmake him out to be. The mythical Reagan is only expanded in the right-wingminds as we make exceptions for his shortcomings—exceptions that we simplyrefuse to extend to any modern-day candidate. I find it incredibly unfair.

RichardGamble makes this point more eloquently than I, writing for The AmericanConservative magazine:

“there is sufficient reason to debate Reagan’s status as theconservative’s ideal executive. Conservatives ought to have enough confidencein their own principles to examine Reagan’s ambiguous legacy in light of thosevery tenets. The history of his presidency ought to lead us through a process,however painful, of self-examination. Reagan as conservative icon must notbecome a way to shut down debate within the conservative movement. Tag linesfrom his speeches must not serve as shortcuts to credibility for rising starseager to become Reagan’s heir. The late president’s words doubtless conjure upoptimism and help audiences feel good about being right-thinking conservatives.But a slogan like “city on a hill,” repeated on cue with mind-numbingpredictability, is unlikely to help the conservative movement, let alone theAmerican people as a whole, to engage in the kind of hard thinking demanded byour economic troubles, precarious national security, and cultural meltdown.”

Thissaid, I simply think that we conservatives are far too hard on our candidates.

BJ, Ialways appreciate your contributions to Black and Red, and I want you to takepleasure in the fact that this comment sent me to the books researching.

Thank you,again, my friend.

"O-Mitt Romney?"

2011-11-28T14:39:00.001-05:00

“O-Mitt Romney?”

By: J. Hunter

Mitt Romney at Heritage Foundation (pic1)

A great quip about theunpredictability of politics says, “I can’t tell you what will happen next, butI can tell you why it was inevitable.” During his presidency, Ronald Reaganprobably had no idea that he would become a conservative icon to the extentthat mirroring him, or being in even the most obscure way associated with him, wouldbe tantamount to a public policy position. Today, Mitt Romney isconfused—scratching his head and trying to figure out why his unpopularity “wasinevitable.” I am equally confused.

Republicans, arehaving a severe allergic reaction to Mr. Romney on the grounds that he is notconservative enough. As with biological allergies, this is simply anoverreaction to common elements in our environment (party, in this case). Howcommon? If you pay attention to Republican gripes, you would think that theparty is rife with secret liberals looking to undermine the conservative cause.Conservative politicians are extolled one day and dashed the next, for not beingsufficiently Reaganesque (according to the ahistorical Neo-Reagan Purists.)

Scott Brown, for example,garnered a “hero’s welcome” for beating a liberal Democrat in a pivotal election for Ted Kennedy’sMassachusetts Senate seat—or “The People’s Seat” as he rightly put it.[1]In short order, he was excoriated for being one of the most liberal Republicansin the Senate. If you Google the words “Scott Brown” and “liberal” you will bemet with a vast array of articles from conservatives citing the work ofUniversity of Chicago professor Dr. Boris Shor titled “Scott Brown is a moreliberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava.”[2]Is he really?

Chris Christie at American Enterprise Institute (pic2)

The straight-talking,no-apologies New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, is another Republican hero—oris he? Ann Coulter loved him. Millions of Republicans tried to drag him intothe 2012 race to save us from Rick Perry (who was saving us from Mitt Romney,who was saving us from Michele Bachman who was saving us from Barack Obama). HoweverReagan-like his admirers once found him, Mr. Christie is now viewed as yetanother pretender.[3]

Finally, the textbook example ofthis paranoia is 2008 Republican presidential candidate, John McCain. Decades earlier,liberals hated McCain because he served the country honorably as a soldier in awar that they hated. In 2008, Republicans abhorred McCain because he was notconservative enough—voting with Republican interests only 82.6% of the time according to the American ConservativeUnion.[4]Denigrating McCain the way Republicans did in 2008 was a complete violation of ReaganPrinciple #211: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is afriend and an ally—not a 20 percent traitor.”[5]Those Neo-Reagan Purists, constantly on the lookout for turncoats, saw McCainas the dastardly 17.4% traitor that he was.

So where are we now?

In 2008, disaffected Republicansviewed Mr. Romney as the conservative alternative to the establishment’s newestRINO (Republican in Name Only) toady, John McCain. Romney lost the primary.McCain lost the general. During the Republican wallowing period following theDemocrat sweep in 2008, right-wingers bayed that they would have won thegeneral if they had only nominated a “true conservative”—like Romney. Surely,Mr. Romney heard that statement everywhere he traveled, and in 2012, thenation was faced with another election where the Republicans needed to offer astark contrast with the liberal president Barack Obama—bold colors, not palepastels.

Enter Mitt Romney.

Ronald Reagan (Pic3)

No one would have predicted theright-wing's scurrilous attacks on Mr. Romney, but given our apparent penchant for rippingourselves to shreds over ideological purity, we can now see these attacks inall of their inevitability. What Republicans claim to want is anotherReagan—but not the real Reagan. Wewant an amorphous, red-meat Reagan that never existed and could never have beenelected had he existed. Republicans want the Reagan who never compromises withthe Left the way that the real Reaganconsistently compromised with Democrat House Speaker, Tip O’Neill. Republicans want theReagan whose record on the issues is impeccably conservative, not like the real Reagan who, as governor ofCalifornia, signed into law the most liberal abortion policy in Americanhistory. Republicans want the Reagan who is tough on unions and immigration,not the real Reagan who was a unionboss and signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act which turned out to be true amnesty forillegal immigrants.

Republicans want a fantasy—aconservative version of Barack Obama minus the feckless leadership style andinability to address the most pressing issues of our time. If we continuallyturn our backs on fellow conservatives, and insist on “the ideal” over “thebetter,” winning elections will become a fantasy, too.

I am too young to remember RonaldReagan, but I consider myself lucky to be able to reap the benefits that hehelped secure for the nation that I love. My daughter is too young to rememberBarack Obama. If we do not get serious about electing a nominee who can defeatMr. Obama in 2012, she (and all of our children) will enjoy all thedisadvantages that he helped secure in his second term while Republicans“honored a man” by dishonoring his true legacy—a legacy that Mr. Romney upholds.

ArticleSources:

[1]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/22/nation/la-na-scott-brown22-2010jan22

[2]http://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-is-a-more-liberal-republican-than-dede-scozzafava/

[3]http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/chris_christie_flaws.html

[4]http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2010/House-Senate-combo.htm#AZ

[5]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Attributed

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://biggovernment.com/tag/romney-care/; "Pic2" from http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/04/09579e16d665a57c38e00f3db179179d0.jpg; "Pic3" from http://www.frumforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/reagan-thumbs-up.jpg

"The Free Exchange"

2011-11-06T16:48:00.002-05:00

“The Free Exchange”

Conservatism’s strength emanates from its penchant for robust debate. “TheFree Exchange” is a series of articles aimed at highlighting and broadening thedebate at Black and Red. When you comment on essays you read at this site, I willrespond to you via this blog series. If you wish to send an email forconsideration in an upcoming Free Exchange article, please email me at blkandred@gmail.com and write “The FreeExchange” and the title of the article you are commenting on in the subjectheading. Hopefully, the free exchange of ideas will prove beneficial to readersand participants. Thank you for reading and thank you so much for commenting.

Under normal circumstances, “TheFree Exchange” is posted on the Wednesday after the comment has been received.However, since I have been on hiatus for so long, many of you have not receivedresponses to your comments in quite a long time. Since my return, the commentshave been stacking up and in order not to show any disrespect for thethoughtful queries that you have presented to me, I have labored to respond toeach one while writing new material. The result is a massive 21-page FreeExchange article that answers every single comment that has since beenunanswered. This week, instead of a typical article, I am posting this FreeExchange article. Henceforth, though, “The Free Exchange” will return to itssacred place in the middle of the week—on Wednesdays.

Also, before I respond to yourexcellent challenges and comments, I would like to take yet another opportunityto thank all of you who read this blog. Your readership and contributions make Blackand Red what it is—exactly what I had always dreamt it to be—a place where intelligentpolitical conversation can thrive. Without you, this is just another darkcorner on the web where a guy talks to himself.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

-J. Hunter

Thisweek, Carolyn Hyppolite addresses: “The FreeExchange.”

Carolyn’scomments are in white. Mine are in green.

Iam sorry for not posting earlier. Christmas is distracting!

I have to disagree with you that libertarians are not concerned about virtue.Libertarians believe that human beings have natural rights, which cannot beabridged and that is fundamental to a virtuous society. The first of suchprinciple is liberty and non-agression. If one assumes that the person is freeand own's his body, than laws that violates this principle are most immoralbecause they violate the person's natural rights.

Secondly, libertarians are not necessarily not concerned about vices but ratherbelieve that government, as a coercive monopolist, ought not to regulate suchmatters. Under libertarian principles, I can freely submit myself to the rigiddictates of Catholic canon law just as you can freely choose not to submityourself. But state power offers no such options. Under the state, we aresubject to things, like blue laws whether we want to or not.

Of course, there are libertarians on both sides abortion debate. I would behappy to comment on that if you like.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Thank you so much forreading, commenting and for wishing me well, Carolyn.

Please know, that I think ofyou every time I write a sentence with the word “libertarian.” I look forward to your challenges on issueslike this because I am fascinated by political ideology.

To respond, first, to yourgeneral objection, I base everything I know about libertarianism—however muchthat may be—on statements and claims by other prominent libertarians. Mostrecently, Jeffrey Miron, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote a bookcalled “Libertarianism, from A to Z.” In a book event, hosted at Cato, Mirondescribed his approach to solving problems—and the approach that libertariansshould emulate—as one that relegates questions of morality to questions of“practicality.”[1]

The most famous libertarianwho openly despised religion was probably Ayn Rand, herself. Rand, alibertarian standard bearer, infamously remarked that Bill Buckley was toointelligent to believe in Christianity.

Libertarians, like FrankMeyer, famously dismissed the writings of traditional conservatives, like L.Brent Bozell Jr., for his dependence on his Catholicreligiosity to inform his political worldview.

The libertarian position onsocial issues like prostitution, abortion, narcotics and humanitarianintervention (of the military variety) are simply inconsistent with virtue. Howcan government decriminalization and regulation of prostitution, for example,be construed as anything other than a tacit endorsement of such a horribleinstitution? The same question can be asked about the libertarian position onillicit drugs and abortion. (By the way, I would love for you to share yourview on libertarianism and abortion.) From where does libertarianism unearth anAmerican’s right to do wrong?

To your second point, Ibelieve that this is the basic reason why libertarianism fails to connect withmost Americans: Unless I am misunderstanding your argument, libertariansrecognize that virtue and vice exist, but believe that government should remainneutral on the issue—endorsing neither. On the other hand, conservatives andliberals simply disagree about what exactly is virtuous and what is vice, butboth believe that government should endorse virtue and punish vice. Liberty in and of itselfis not a virtue, and both, traditional conservatives and liberals agree withthat point.

I trust that, when you findtime, you will deliver a wonderful response to my claims. I gladly welcome yourthoughts.

NSangomaresponds to “The Smutty Professor.” NSangoma’s comments are in red. Mine are ingreen.

WilliamF Buckley rejected you, BLACK and UNREAD, Negroe.
Irrefragable BLACK and UNREAD Negroe, means impossible to refute:
...
[T]he legality of the 14th amendment. ... The argument that it wasimproperly ratified is historically irrefragable...
Martin Luther King will never rouse a rabble; in fact, I doubt very much if hecould keep a rabble awake... past its bedtime...
Martin Luther King... [his] lecture... delivered with all the force and fervorof the five-year-old who nightly recites: "Our Father, Who art in NewHaven, Harold be Thy name"...
The central question... is whether the White community in the South is entitledto take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer isYes.... National Review believes that the South's premises are correct...
The axiom... was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote....That, of course, is demagogy.... The great majority of the Negroes of the Southwho do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote ifthey could. ...
William F Buckley, National Review

Your IgNence conservative Negroe am incontestable, no undeniable.

Latin irrefragabilis , from Latin in- , "not" + refragari ,"to oppose."
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/08/21.html

Thank you for commenting, NSangoma, and thank youfor defining irrefragable for my readers. One of the many things I love aboutWilliam F. Buckley is his command of the English language.

On thatnote, I’d like to commend to you a different word—germane. (Germane is just afancy word for relevant.)

I do notunderstand how your criticism of Buckley is germane to the topic of liberalindocrination at American universities. Your argument is a non-sequitur:Because A was incorrect in his stance on X, A must therefore be incorrect inhis stance on the unrelated Y. Should we ignore Martin Luther King’s views onracial equality because he was a womanizer? Of course not! Should we ignore anyof your opinions because you have fallen on the wrong side of any issue?Surely, no.

Tounderstand the correlation between the controversy at Northwestern Universityand William F. Buckley, I would recommend that you read Buckley’s seminal work“God and Man at Yale.” Even if you don’t agree with him, you’re sure to expandyour lexicon.

To addressBuckley’s quote, I am perfectly comfortable admitting that he may have beenwrong on some civil rights issues. As you may know, the 1960s was a difficulttime for Americaand many people said many things that they have come to regret. To understandBuckley, or anyone else commenting on segregation and race relations in thattime period, one must understand that.

Be that asit may, as I read the quote, there is not much with which I disagree. That isnot because I am a Buckley apologist, but because I have a talent (some call ita skill, or even a curse or defect) that allows me to divorce my emotions fromhighly emotional subjects. Sometimes, that tendency leads me to properconclusions, and other times my failure to appreciate this palpable intangiblesubstance that exists in political discussions leads me to incorrect conclusions.That said, there are elements of the quote that appear to be prescient andapplicable today—especially pertaining to the most controversial segment of hisargument, that which relates to Negro voting.

Askyourself, for example, what percentage of black Americans participate inelection politics. Then, ask why polls show that black Americans are an outlierwhen it comes to judging the direction of the country and the president’s jobapproval. In other words, vast majorities of Americans of every color, sansblack, believe that the president is leading the nation in the wrong direction,but black Americans are convinced otherwise despite their lowered economic andsocial status since Obama has taken office. That suggests to me an epidemic ofunderdeveloped political acumen in the black community, as well as anirrational adherence to a tribal loyalty—both issues being completelyincompatible with participation in a functioning democracy. The lack of blackparticipation in electoral politics, especially given the relative ease withwhich blacks are allowed to vote compared to the 1960s, suggests that today“The great majority of Negroes…who do not vote do not care to vote…” Theinverse relationship between black espirit de corps’ and the palpable dreadshared by every other ethnic group in the country about the nation’s direction,especially given that the fate of the United States determines the fate ofAmerican blacks, supports the latter half of the controversial segment ofBuckley’s quote. Negroes “would not know for what to vote if they could.”

I lookforward to your reply. Thanks for reading.

Roderickand Anonymous also respond to “The Smutty Professor.” Roderick’s comments arein orange. Anonymous’ are in yellow. Mine are in green.

Iagree that the demonstration was over the top but were the students told of thedemonstration in advance and after it began were they allowed to leave?

If either of those two options were avaliable then I don't understand the issuebecause the class was a study on human sexuality after all.

Firstof all to NSangoma.... feel better about your self now that you got that off ofyour chest? I would have to go into agreement with Roderick. If you wereinformed ahead of time of the demonstration and had an option to leave then theissue should be mute. This after all took place on a college campus not a highschool gymnasium. Drop the hormones and religious agenda from the issue and seeit for it's intellectual purposes.

Roderick and Anonymous, thank you so much for commenting on thispiece.

I admit that the mostfrustrating part of this controversy is that one side insists that the debateshould be about consent, whereas I am making (or am trying to make) an argumentabout puerility and the function of the American university. American studentsare competing in a global market against foreigners who come to Americanuniversities to learn important things. Here at Northwestern, that point isquite evident. University education is very expensive, and Americans barelystomach the fact that there are so many useless degrees (African Americanstudies, women’s studies, Chicano studies, etc.). There is a serious debate about how usefulsome of these classes are, and at what point they go from legitimate educationto becoming political indoctrination. Add to the list of questionable academicendeavors a Human Sexuality course. On the one hand, tuition paying parents,donors and interested observers are willing to grimace and offer moral andfinancial support to the institutions that offer these classes under theinsistence of academics that these topics are pursued purely in the interest ofadvancing true knowledge. However, when Bailey invited the sex workers to hisclass to “perform,” it became much more difficult to sell, not just theusefulness of his class, but also the usefulness of the Northwestern degree andof a college education. A student who attended that event surely learnednothing that could not have been learned by simply going to a typical sex show.Furthermore, whatever knowledge was gained cannot be discussed academically orin polite company. The sex show lacked intellectual substance. What Bailey didhurt academia’s argument.

Why was Bailey’s decisioninappropriate? Not simply because it was indecent—and it was—but also becauseit was injurious to the school, the reputation of his defenders and, as aresult, to those who continue to defend the expensive college experience.

I look forward to otherthoughts you may have on this matter. Thank you for participating.

BJ,Anonymous and Kazador commented on “Progressive Conservatism.” BJ’s commentsare in blue. Anonymous’ are in yellow and Kazador’s comments are in lavender.Mine are in green.

Welcomeback! I am so happy to see your blog return to the internet airwaves. Believeit or not, you are giving back by doing this. I would welcome your writing evenonce a month if things get too busy, but it's great to see its return.

I love these political theory discussions. I agree that the so-calledprogressive ideas are not new with a few exceptions such as same-sex marriage.Their idea of income redistribution by big government/forced equality of resultis an old, Marxist idea that was put in place in the old Soviet Union, Cambodia,and other such places in the last hundred years. Their environmentalworshipping ideas are arguably based on pre-Bible, nature worshipping ideas ofthe ancient times. On the other hand, conservative ideas try to preserve andsustain the ideas and values of our Founding Fathers from the late 1700's.

Dennis Prager was so right when he said that everything with the left isbackwards. They are the ones truly stuck in the 1960's "past." Everyforeign conflict is the Vietnam War (Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan,Kosovo); still fighting racism against blacks and sexism whether it exists today on that scale or not; still fighting corporate greed with today's versionof the "Great Society" and its war on poverty such as the stimuluspackage and the Community Reinvestment Act; still for reverse racism known asaffirmative action etc.

I look forward to many more of your insights.

Thank you, BJ, for your unwavering support and encouragement. Sooften I am up late at night, even into the pre-dawn morning hours, researchingand writing blog articles. You never fail—despite your own busy schedule—toread these essays and write such thoughtful and intelligent replies. You keepme motivated, and for that, I truly thank you.

I plan to take you up on your offer to write monthly if I get boggeddown again.

I think it is important for conservatives to fight the rhetoric ofthe left as much as possible, and to a great degree we do so rathersuccessfully. I never tire of making the comparisons between liberal policiesand other obsolete ideas.

ThankGod you're back.

I thank God you’re back to read me. And of course, I thank you fordoing so.

Goodshow as always... I look forward to reading more and more articles as the weeksprogress.

Thank you Kazador! I hope tocontinue engaging you.

Francoisecommented on “Our Stolen Generation (Murder in the First).” Francoise’scomments are in grey. Mine are in green.

Disgusting. I'm pregnant and intendingto raise and love my child, I'm looking at pictures of ultrasounds online and Icome upon this on the first line of results.

Great job, people. The power of hatred.

Francoise,

Thank you for reading andcommenting. God bless you for your intention to raise and love your child. Yourlittle baby will learn how fortunate he/she is to have such a wonderful motheras a nurturer.

Abortion, in my view, trulyis an institution of hatred. It’s hatred not only for the innocent baby who ismurdered, but it is hatred of God.

God gives us so manygifts—even the most destitute among us share in these God-given gifts. Forsomeone to murder an innocent human being in pursuit of a “higher or sustainedquality of life,” they are doing so, in effect, for the sake of materialwealth. In other words, we are breakingGod’s commandment for material greed—idols, as it were. What could be moreungrateful or disdainful of God?

Every time I am able todebate abortion proponents fully, it always comes down to this undeniable fact.(I had such a debate three weeks ago.)

The “Our Stolen Generation”series will continue.

BJcomments on “The Conservative Heart.” BJ’s comments are in blue. Mine are ingreen.

Joe,

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to have Black and Red back. And after allthe recent events in my personal life, it is wonderful to take a peacefulmoment to read your writing and insight about what's happening to our belovedcountry. I say all this because I really, truly love this analysis. You told mea condensed version of this before but this article illuminates a point that'sso true.

I am very disturbed by the left-wing direction that our country has been movingtowards, with Obamacare being the greatest example. However, I am even moresick and disturbed about how left-leaning the Republican Party has become. Asmuch as I love President Bush, he had some left-leanings fiscally and in termsof expanding the size of government. Plus the nomination of McCain seemed toalmost nail the title of "Democrat-lite" to the Republican Party.

This is why it is imperative that the next nominee be a solid, trueconservative that's unapologetic,as you pointed out. As Prager said, I wouldrather lose narrowly with a true conservative (Rick Perry, Herman Cain) nomineerather than win with a half-ass conservative (McCain, Romney). We may differhere, but I'm not as focused on just winning but producing that conservative.What good is winning if what we have a watered down Democrat in our Party? Thenwe really will have unity in the wrong way: all leftward.

If the Republicans do nominate Romney or one of these Democrat-lite, I think weconservatives need to leave the GOP and form a different, true conservativeparty since it's clear that we true conservatives cannot take over the GOP. Itwould sink us in the short term, but the current liberal-instinct Republicans(a la Mark Kirk) being in the GOP is slowly bleeding us to death anyways.That's why I'm thankful for the Tea Party, bringing the debates right-wards.

And so this is my way of agreeing with you and that's why I'm so happy thatRick Perry entered the race. There's all this criticism against him now andthat's fine. I didn't see the latest debates where people say he did so awful.But I don't understand how people can be so short-sighted. Perry cannot havedone that bad, making Palin-like mistakes. If he really does suck, fine. Heshouldn't be our nominee. But I don't see that he has. And in this criticaltime where we need an electable, all around conservative, Perry is it. There isno one else that fits the bill. So his stance on illegal immigration sucks andhe maybe sucked in the debates. Fine. Let's build him up and help fix him. Iwant to ask many Republicans, why pile-drive on him as if he is a Democratopponent? Romney is self-amputating himself with his stubborn, ego-lacedresponse to Romneycare. That really does disqualify him from being the nominee,not to mention his belief in global warming and former pro-choice stance. Hehas NEVER explained why Romeneycare was necessary for Massachusetts. And how was it right for Mass. but not right forthe country? And if it was right for Mass.,then would Romney be OK if Californiadecided to pass a similar law for themselves? Ridiculous. There's no one else.We need to stick by our guy and eliminates these other nominees like Romney andBachmann (as much as I like her) who are sinking our own ship for the future. Iam looking towards next year and we need Perry undamaged to go against Obama.Obama himself was raw and full of stupid statements (57 states, I would talk toany country's leader without preconditions etc) but he polished up through the2 year campaign process. I don't understand how Republicans can just sit back,shoot away, and criticize/kill our only chance against Obama just because Perryhasn't done well on several debates. Talk about wanting a perfect candidateright now.

BJ,

Thank you for the kindwords. It is a pleasure to be writing again. I wish I could have replied tothis sooner because you and I have spoken about this and fleshed it out moresince you wrote this comment. If I understand your current position on Perrycorrectly (and as you know, I am always open to correction) your support forhim has considerably cooled. Mine has too.

For me, Perry was introducedas the great conservative hope who would come along and save the RepublicanParty and the country, but when he entered the race, he proved himself to bejust a jerk. From day one, he harshly savaged Mitt Romney, and he rightfullypaid a price for doing so.

I don’t want to get intoPerry and his problems here, though. Instead, I would like to address where youand I disagree:

While I, too, am disturbedabout the leftward direction that our country has taken, I strongly disagreethat the Republican Party is taking a turn to the left. I submit that if youtalk to liberals—especially older liberals—they will tell you that the DemocratParty has turned to the right. To some degree, I think they are correct, and Ithink that is so because Republicans deal in reality and sooner or laterDemocrats must face reality themselves. For example, liberals of the past,especially progressives, had a slash-and-burn attitude towards the wealthy. Inother words, they believed so strongly in wealth redistribution, that they didnot care what it meant for the rich. Today, that dynamic has changed, to thepoint where the president is surrounded by successful Wall Street elite, andDemocrats shape their big government policies to be accommodating to the richin order to take advantage of support from the wealthy. Our president, with aDemocratic Congress, also failed to cancel the Bush Tax Cuts, instead waitinguntil he faced fierce opposition from newly elected Republicans. A true,ideological liberal would have addressed those tax cuts from day one.

Democrats, also, must cometo terms with the fact that (to his great credit) President Obama is aterrorist-killing machine. Despite his campaign promises, he has not closed theprison at Guantanamo Bay, nor has he ended the war in Afghanistan (instead, he doubled down with atroop surge) and he led American troops into Libyawhere we deposed an age-old enemy to the United States. Osama bin Laden,Anwar al-Awlaki, Muammar Gaddafi and a slew of terrorists and Somali pirateswere all killed by the command of a Democrat president who will undoubtedlytake credit for their deaths, and not face a liberal backlash.

On what issue has theRepublican Party turned left?

I listened to a speech givenby Republican presidential hopeful, Robert Taft, given in 1940. Paul Ryan couldread those words today, and they would still apply. Republicans may changepolicy positions on occasion, but they generally find their center of gravityin conservatism.

Richard Nixon gave usaffirmative action. The Republican Party is firmly against that now.

Nixon also gave us theEnvironmental Protection Agency. Today, the GOP wants to slash (if noteliminate) it.

Ronald Reagan supported theSimpson-Mazzoli Act—which was trueamnesty for illegal immigrants. Republicans are, today, wholly against amnestyfor illegal immigrants.

As governor of California, Reagansigned the most liberal abortion bill in American history—the TherapeuticAbortion Act. Mass slaughter was a result. There is not a single pro-choiceRepublican running for President now.

George H.W. Bush raised ourtaxes after promising not to, and Republicans dumped him.

His son expanded governmentin the areas of Medicare and Education. His reputation is suffering as aresult, and Republicans widely believe it to have been a mistake.

On core issues—issues thatmatter to conservatives and to the country—the Republican Party has remainedsteadfast and principled. I see no leftward drift or flirtation withliberalism.

In addition to that point,you and I also differ as to whom we should embrace in the party. I am a bigtent Republican, one who supports moderates, libertarians, traditionalists, andthe reddest red meat that can win. If we purge Republicans who are notideologically pure, then we become the Democrats—a party that will not allowdissention, individuality or fresh ideas (even misguided ones). We must always encouragedebates and new ideas. We need to debate our own—folks like Mark Kirk—and letthem know that this party is a conservative one.

Finally, I am a believerthat we should not expect our politicians to be cookie cutters. A Republican inMaine will not hold the same views as one in Mississippi. The statesconsist of different people who demand different policies of their politicians.That said, I do not worry about Romneycare. I would not want to live underRomneycare in Illinois—Iwould move. But you must understand that Obamacare does not offer us the sameoption. I must participate in Obamacare or leave America. Even if the policies aresimilar, the matter of degree varies considerably. In addition to that, thepeople of Massachusettsfavored Romneycare, while the American people did not favor Obamacare. To me,those are huge differences. What is an executive to do if not the will of thegoverned?

I’m sure you have noticedthat I have not written a piece about the Republican presidential candidates yet.That’s because I’m not sold on any of them yet. Romney and I have some seriousissues to work out, and they are the issues that he must work out with theentire conservative movement. “Mr. Romney, can you demonstrate to me that youare a conservative in your core and not just an opportunist?” Until he answersthat question, he will continue to only enjoy tepid support from a Party thatis constantly looking for his replacement.

Romneycare isn’t the issue.Conviction is the issue.

BJcomments on “The Tea Party as a Movement, Not a Faction.” BJ’s comments are inblue. Mine are in green.

This is very interesting. I agree withwhat you wrote and you articulate an objective, accurate description of the TeaParty. But I've always wanted to ask you what you personally thought of the TeaParty Movement. Did you mention briefly to me before about how you thoughtthere were racist-like tendencies in the Tea Party or am I imagining things?

I first disliked the Tea Party since I'm not a fan of big protesting peopleanyways. But over time, I've come to LOVE this movement and even considermyself to be one of them. Bring primarily a fiscally conservative issuemovement, they have changed the basic tone of the national discussion after theleft-ward movement of our country thanks to Obama. I think they'll end upsaving this country. This is how a democracy/republic was meant to work; thepeople rising up and giving orders to its government. Daniel Hannan said thatthe reason the British has no Tea Party is that they don't have directprimaries. Thank God for that and may God continue to bless our country.

Thank you for the commentand for the kind words, BJ.

My view of the Tea Party haschanged quite a bit since its inception, but I want to be very clear in sayingthat I never thought of it as being at all racist. I reserve that term,usually, for open racists.

In the beginning, I wasnervous about them simply because I am nervous about any mass movement. I onceattended a Second Amendment rally in downtown Chicago and ever since then, I decided that Ishould probably avoid mass protests. Liberals run into this problem all of thetime: they attend a Code Pink rally because they are against the War in Iraqand a chapter of Code Pink in another city does something deplorable. Then,every protester is painted with the same brush. What I feared was that a TeaParty event may go awry, somewhere, and I would be guilty by association. Mypicture could appear in the newspaper much like it did when I attended theSecond Amendment rally, and I could suffer unintended consequences.

Also, in the beginning,nobody really seemed sure what the Tea Party was really about: if it was alibertarian movement, if it was a group angry with Republicans and Democratsequally (and if so, was it, then, just a group of independent protesters), ifthe group would materialize into something more constructive than protestersdressed as colonists. I recall watching the reactions of conservative andlibertarian groups—The Cato Institute, for example, wavered in support for theTea Party, sometimes calling it a libertarian movement and sometimesadmonishing it as a mob of traditional conservatives unserious aboutlibertarian policies. Other conservative commentators were simply reticentuntil they were clear that supporting the Tea Party would not harm theirreputation.

That said though, I’mlargely happy that they exist and that people marched and participated in them.I understand you saying that the Tea Party will save the Union—it has galvanizedconservatives and given us the much needed morale boost to stand up to aDemocrat Party that is utterly hostile to us. In cities across the nation, theTea Party has reminded us that we are not alone, and that even our protestersare decent, law-abiding people who love the institutions that make this nationgreat.

Now, I have not alwaysagreed with the Tea Party’s tactics. I hated their support for ChristineO’Donnell. She is an absolute embarrassment, an opportunist and (at leastpolitically) a loser. I did not agreewith the Tea Party stance on raising the debt ceiling. I think that Cut, Capand Balance should have been the plan that Republicans unified around insteadof the political game of chicken that we played—and could never have won.Furthermore, I don’t care for the Tea Party’s disdain for Speaker Boehner.Boehner is one of my favorite Republicans, in fact. He works very hard toadvance the conservative agenda using practical methods. He should beuniversally hailed as a hero of Republicanism, not castigated as “old-guard.”

In the end, you’reright—this is democracy at its finest. It’s why I, like George Will, encouragethe Occupy movement.

To draw a quick parallelbetween the two protests, and speak to American media bias, it should be notedthat the Tea Party was constantly accused, sans evidence, of being racist orextreme. As a personal example, I was contacted by a journalist in April of2010 to comment on the Tea Party movement. In the pre-interview stage, theyoung lady asked me how I could be so supportive of a movement that was soracist. I told her that the Tea Party was not racist at all. Reflexively, shebrought up the story about Tea Partiers spitting on and hurling epithets atblack and gay congressmen while they walked to the Capitol building to voteagainst the will of the people in support of Obamacare. When I retorted thatthere was no evidence to support that story despite the many media cameraspresent and despite the intense desire of the media to want to advance that narrative,she simply shrugged off my rebuttal.

She ended up notinterviewing me. I could not give her the story that she wanted—the story of apoor, confused, black man-child who was forced to subvert his blackness inorder to be accepted by the very movement that keeps America a white-dominated society.

My point is, the media has,for months, searched for a “gotcha moment” with the Tea Party. There areliterally hundreds of Tea Parties throughout the country, and the media has notbeen able to discredit any of them with a shred of proof—anywhere. Compare thisto the Occupy movement, within which there are daily reports of anti-Semitism,rape, murder, vandalism, drug-peddling and disorderliness.[2]Still, though, more Americans have fond feelings for the Occupiers than for theTea Party.[3]I believe that to be largely a function of media coverage.

BJresponds to “This Week in Government Ineptitude: Illinois’ Child Care Assistance Program.”BJ’s comments are in blue. Mine are in green.

Thisis heartbreaking and sad to read. I have a lot of experience in this areaunfortunately. Although I am a small government advocate like you, there areareas of government that are essential and need to both improve in its qualityand better funded. The military, police, firefighters, and DCFS are all suchareas. Why we are wasting so much money on other areas but not these areas isbaffling. And I am not talking about blindly throwing money at the DCFS system.But certainly there is no real private solution to childcare of abused andneglected kids due to the amount they charge. And so maybe from the inception,there should have been some private childcare organizations created. But thisis one of the few areas that needs to expand in its quality and quantity. Weowe those poor neglected and abused kids of our society that much.

BJ,

What you are offering is acommon sense, conservative solution to a problem that really does afflict thiscountry. Of course, we are not inconsistent in saying that our currentgovernment is too large, wasteful and poorly managed while advocating for someareas of government to be better funded or even expanded. In fact, I would evenargue that Americans would acquiesce to paying higher taxes if the governmentengaged in objectively beneficial endeavors and more credibly staunched wasteand inefficiency.

Stephen Goldberg wrote afascinating book that every conservative should read. It’s called “Billions ofDrops in Millions of Buckets.” In it, Goldberg addresses the conservativenotion that government should leave philanthropy solely to the privatesector—non-profits, charities, etc. We say that as something of a throw-awayline, though. Goldberg argues that most people do not know about the seriouschallenges facing philanthropic organizations. The thesis of his book is thatthere are actually multiple philanthropic organizations that are duplicative,and furthermore, the money that one organization raises for a cause may not besufficient enough to serve its purpose because other similar organizationsraised money for the same cause (however insufficient) as well. What results isa situation in which 40 organizations try to single-handedly take onhomelessness, for example, on a budget of $1 million apiece. Goldberg suggeststhe 40 organizations consolidate into one organization that could make agreater difference on what would become a $40 million budget.

While the goal of this piecewas to point out the ineptitude of government agencies, your comment hammershome a much more important aspect that I neglected to emphasize—the human costof this ineptitude. I hope that the sufferers are considered as we look forpolitical solutions to social ills.

Anonymouscomments on “Terrorism 2010.” Anonymous’ comments are in yellow. Mine are ingreen.

The Nigerian Leaders will soon experience the greatest terrorist attack, ifthere is no provision for the unemployed Nigerian YOUTHS. This youths has planto eliminate the lives and properties of Nigerian leaders, if they refuse topass a bill that will allow each unemployed youths to live on #40,0000 permonth. This request must take effects from 1st of december,2011.

Failure to pass the bill will make us to bomb the house assembly complex,defence headquarter and all the government in each state.

Employ us or give us something to live on. Failure to do this.............willcause chaos.

Thank you forcommenting, Anonymous.

I struggled with how to moderate your comment—either to post it andtake it seriously or ignore it as a jejune rant from an anonymous writer.However, I found myself becoming increasingly enraged every time I read yourwords, because I absolutely abhor terrorism. So you win! For that reason, Idecided to take it seriously—even though, I don’t expect you to ever read myresponse or offer a counter. If you are serious, and if you do reply, I hopeyou do so to tell me that you see the foolishness in your ways and haverepented. If you do not reply, I hope that you are either a prankster, or thatyou died in the planning stages of your terrorist attack.

Anonymous, reading your post makes me happy to live in a civilizedcountry where violence and barbarism is not a political tactic. It also remindsme of how happy I am to be black in America instead of any color in theworthless society that people like you have created in a country so rich innatural resources and potential. Blame colonialism for your problems, if youwish. Blame Europe. Blame America. Blameyour politicians. What is your solution? What happens after you bomb buildingsand kill people? Does money pour into Nigeria from a magical blood fairy?

Shaun,BJ and Anonymous respond to “Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem Part Two:The Voting Schema.” Shaun’s comments are in pink, BJ’s are in blue andAnonymous’ are in yellow. Mine are in green.

havingread this entry and part one, i am inclined to agree with you that option 1 isthe simplest method of reform as opposed to option 2. the sound-byte debatesare, at times, a glorified version of The Dozens, minus "mama jokes"and stuff. not productive nor entertaining to me.

Agreed.

I think, though, that BJ has made the 2^nd option morefeasible by suggesting that primaries all occur at the same time.

Thanks for reading andcommenting, Shaun.

Joe,

I wouldn't think that anything Chris Matthews says is true these days. Whatdoes that mean? That we are all some Nazi troopers listening and falling inline to our Hitler king maker Rush Limbaugh? I cannot stand Matthews. He isintellectually vapid, a bully, and a man-child who rarely gets challenged likehe should.

Anyways, the only way this two stage voting could work is if you held all theprimaries at the same time rather than this long, drawn out primary season. Ithink this timing thing is everything. The reason why you and I did not get tovote for Giuliani is that the earlier states such as Iowa,New Hampshire, and Florida already did the nominating for theentire party. It's silly and ridiculous to let a few select states pick ournominee before we ever get a voice. If there was a way to have all the primaryvoting on the same day earlier in the year with this two stage process, thatwould be ideal.

I like both of your ideas. With the debates earlier in the year and thenational two stage primary held around April or May, that would produce themost qualified and electable candidate to beat our opponents. What do youthink?

Thank you BJ,

Let me begin by acknowledging your point about Mr. Matthews. It istrue that he is a bully and a windbag, and more often than not, I ignore hisrants. Matthews was implying that conservatives were marching goose-step withthe party like Nazis. If you forget that he is the messenger, and ignore hisinnuendo, though, there is a kernel of truth to what he said especially withregards to the 2008 election. To be clear, though, I only invoked Matthewsbecause he makes conservatives’ skin crawl—my own skin included.

You would be hard pressed to find many Republicans who were excitedto vote for McCain. I, personally, worked hard to consider the totality of theman before I felt comfortable with him. Instead, we supported him because hewas the nominee.

On the left,though, the love-fest could not have been more sickening.

To some degree, we fell in line and they fell in love. We justaren’t the brain-dead Nazis who Matthews wishes we were.

For this reason, I think it is imperative that we continue to leadthe way politically, and change our nomination process so that Republicans canrest easy with our nominees. I don’t think Republicans have been in love sinceReagan, and that was some time ago now.

Your suggestion that all of the primaries take place at the sametime would fix the most important problems that I foresaw. I, too, hate thatother states whittle down the field before the rest of the nation can choosethe candidate. I wonder if this issue has been raised before, and if so, whythere has been no serious effort to make changes. If you noticed, Jon Huntsmansat out the debate in Las Vegas to protest Nevada moving theirprimary to an earlier date in the year. Huntsman was showing solidarity withthe state of New Hampshire which was verydispleased with Nevada’smove. Clearly, this suggests a deeper story—a stubborn marriage to a systemthat is injurious to the constituency and to the Republican Party.

I'm confused. Isn't it fairly apparent that the majority of primary voterswant, above all, to win the general election? If I'm correct, then, the currentsystem does seem to produce the primary voters' preferred choices. They choseMcCain in 2008, e.g., because they thought he had the best chance to becomePresident. They'll make the same calculation this time and likely end up withRomney or Perry.

Thank you,Anonymous, for your comment.

You are right to suggest that primary voters want to win thegeneral, but the problem is that they have differing opinions about whichcandidate is best suited to do so. On the one hand, you could claim that McCainwas the primary voters’ first choice. I argue, though, that voters are toooften swayed by intangibles like momentum and a feeling of inevitability. Infact, the candidates are affected similarly—See Tim Pawlenty in this campaign.When a candidate does not fare well in Iowa orNew Hampshireunder our current system, he is under intense pressure to leave the race. Thisassumes, though, that voters in Idaho, California, New Mexico and other states would vote similarly. Themedia presumes any candidate who does not succeed early in a primary race deadin the water, and donors lose incentive to give to his campaign. Voters truly do not get a choice. They must,instead, choose from a list made shorter by voters in other states—who havedifferent concerns.

I hope I have explained my rationale for writing this piece moreclearly to you. If not, please feel free to challenge further.

BJcomments on “Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem Part One: The Debates.”His comments are in blue. Mine are in green.

Joe,

I was clapping as I read your blog. THIS IS SO TRUE AND NEEDED!! It'sfrustrating to see the MSNBC idiots and the rest of the liberal media trying toignite a fire for ratings and for their bias of the candidates stumbling. ILOVE the idea of think tanks and conservative organizations holding thedebates. The only thing is to make sure that there are fair and substantivechallenges so that the public doesn't see and think that these are scripted andplanned softballs being thrown at the candidates. I'm not so hot on the idea ofthe one on one since it would to too difficult to coordinate and would take toolong to digest. (You and I would love it, but not the public. I don't thinkthey can stomach 2 hours of Ron Paul and Huntsman) I also heard that Heritagelecture about Reagan vs. Buckley debate about the Panama Canal. We should petition RNC Chairman Priebus regarding thisidea. I look forward to your second suggestion.

BJ,

I am very happy that you like this idea as muchas I do. I’m also very happy that you had a chance to view or listen to theHeritage Foundation event. (Here is alink to it, for any of my readers who would like to listen.) Dr. Lee Edwards is an absolute treasure. When I see hisname attached to any papers or events at Heritage, I immediately consume it andnever regret having done so. There are a lot of great folks at Heritage, Dr.Lee Edwards and Matthew Spalding are among my favorites.

It is so clearly unfair that the liberal media can question Democratcandidates and Republican candidates alike. They get to frame the issues andforce our candidates into narrow categories. Even Fox News—considered by manyto be a conservative news source—has a greater interest in scandal and ratingsthan does the Republican electorate at large.

I believe that think tanks would serve as much better organizationsto host Republican debates. In fact, I am certain that their questions would beanything but softballs. I would expect a think tank like the HeritageFoundation to ask some of the important “worldview” questions that are mostimportant to conservatives—questions that would elucidate the true convictionsof Republicans like Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and John McCain. Think, too, ofhow different debates would be if Republicans had to sit before the CatoInstitute! Surely, they would receive no quarter there. The most importantthing is that we, as voters, would truly get a sense of how the prospectivepresidents draw conclusions: what informs them, how libertarian they are, how traditionalthey are.

Also, I think that in-depth one-on-one interviews or debates between two or threecandidates could work. If, for example, instead of seeing single debates with 8or 9 candidates on stage, there were 4 debates taking place simultaneously(i.e.: Gingrich v. Paul, Bachmann v. Perry, Huntsman v. Romney, Cain v.Santorum ), the voters would be able to see the candidates at theirintellectual best. There would be no room for soundbytes, slogans or perniciousjabs.

Now, the important question you raise about audience appeal—an issueraised at the Heritage Foundation event, is a deep one (one to which I shoulddevote an entire essay). My shortresponse, however, is this: You may very well be right, that the general publicmay not be keen on digesting one-on-one debates. (You give the example of Huntsmanv. Paul—a debate that I would probably skip, myself.) From my vantage point,though, most of the general public is, also, not very politically engaged. Notto be too blunt, but I don’t really care about accommodating the people whowait until a week before the election to read a pamphlet about the candidatesand then vote. Debates should serve the truly dedicated politicos—folks likeus, and many people who read this blog. That said, there will always be anavenue for the less serious political junkies to get their fix forsalaciousness—entertainment news media that covers political events, etc. Therewill also be plenty of resources for people who are new to politics to learnmore, so that they aren’t completely in the cold and overwhelmed.

To some degree, though, your question is like a variation of theproverbial “If a tree falls in a forest” question. “If an enlightening debateoccurs at a think tank and no one is around to be enlightened, what good isit?” The only answer I have to that question may not be a particularlysatisfying one, but it is: that at the very least, the debates could be used toget a better sense of who the candidates and presidents were and how theythought. They would be like transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates are today.Sometimes, I watch the old Bush-Reagan debates, but then again, I’m a politicalnerd.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, BJ.

Anonymous has left a newcomment on "Explaining Deadlock". Anonymous’ comments are inyellow. Mine are in green.

Your post seems like a great illustration of the difference between advocacyand argument. Most Democrats believe that congressional deadlock (in thiscurrent Congress) exists, not because of a divide in core convictions, butbecause the Republicans don't want to take actions that would be likely tosubstantially improve the national economy in advance of the 2012 elections. Aconservative acting as an advocate for his side would not address this (fairlywide-spread) belief. A conservative intending to engage in argument would.

Thank you forcommenting Anonymous,

You are right toclaim that most Democrats believe that Congressional deadlock is the result ofRepublican recalcitrance, in fact, I actually agree—in part. Where you and Imay disagree pertains to policy analysis. You believe that the policies thatthe Democrats are proposing are “likely to substantially improve the nationaleconomy.” I, the Republicans and millions of American voters, firmly disagree.We believe that President Obama’s Jobs Bill, for example, will actually makeAmerica’s matters worse. For this reason, the Republicans are staunchingefforts the Democrats are making that will (in our view) detriment the Americaneconomy.

Here is where Idisagree with the Democrats: to pretend that the Republicans are refusing tocooperate for reasons other than core convictions, is to ascribe a motive thatis not only impossible to prove, but is also not supported by the evidence.Republicans have always resisted the kind of federal spending and regulationthat President Obama and the Democrats support. Even when they strayed fromfiscal responsibility during the Bush years, you could find Republicans whowere openly displeased.

Moreover, when anelection is as seismic as the 2010 election, or the 2006 and 2008 elections,the new politicians have a mandate to stop the policies of the party in power.

I hope that Ihave proven myself to be a conservative interested in argumentation. Pleasechallenge further otherwise.

[1] http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7037

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-security_n_1069597.html

[3] http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-13/news/30293944_1_tea-party-wall-street-movement-big-banks

"Explaining Deadlock"

2011-10-31T01:02:00.000-05:00

“Explaining Deadlock”

By: J. Hunter

Two weeks ago, I engaged inanother knock-down, drag-out debate with my liberal parents. (As a bit ofadvice to my fellow conservatives who feel the need to engage with liberals,make it a point to learn as much about as many issues as possible—liberals havea tendency to change the subject when their talking points crumble under theweight of reason.) Accordingly, my parents and I argued about the Occupy WallStreet movement, Herman Cain, public employee unions and the role ofgovernment. I found much of what they said to be disturbing, but nothing wasmore bewildering than their simple proclamation that they were angry aboutCongressional deadlock. My mother’s face was red and glistening with sweat asshe struggled with her grown son with the same intensity as she did when shedelivered me as a tiny rebellious baby.

Arguing (pic1)

“We didn’t send Congress toWashington to do nothing,” she yelled. “They need to stop talking and act! We’resick of the arguing and debating! Just do something!”

My father seconded her, and Icouldn’t help rolling my eyes and being overdramatic.

I threw my hands and face skywardas if pleading to God and exclaimed, “I’ve been blown away by yoursimple-minded arguments, but that is the most juvenile thing you two have saidall day!” (I’m straddling The Fifth Commandment, here.) I made my case, but tono avail—my father tilted his head like a puppy does when it encounterssomething for the first time. My mother stared at me blankly, and theirexpressions worried me. Considering that they are liberal, and that there is a correlationbetween the amount of television one watches and political leaning, whereliberalism correlates with higher television consumption than conservatism,their confusion made a little bit of sense.[1]

When you consume mass media—especiallytelevision media—you hear a lot of half-baked ideas bandied about betweencommercial breaks. There is no debate. There is no explanation of ideas, and asa result, consumers walk around with sentence fragments, slogans, talkingpoints, non-sequiturs and random images floating around in their head. Theyconstantly hear that the current Congressional deadlock is unprecedented, notthat it is inevitable—or even preferable. I took this opportunity to clarifywhat I believed to be a no brainer.

This is how I began to explainthe deadlock to my parents:

Republicans vs. Democrats

Republicans v. Democrats (pic2)

Congress is divided between theDemocrats and the Republicans such that neither side can enact policies unimpeded.To make matters worse, the two parties are diametrically opposed. Republicansbelieve that government engages in too many activities that are best left tolocalities and individual citizens. We believe that when government interjects,it makes matters worse and at a high fiscal cost. Democrats, on the other hand,believe that government intervention and manipulation ensures fairness and isthe best way to care for vulnerable citizens. These views are difficult toreconcile, but the most recent elections made the gulf even more unbridgeable.

The Democrats who survived the2010 elections were those who represented safely liberal districts—that meansthat they were rewarded for holding fast to their ideological viewpoints. Onthe other hand, the populist conservative movement known as the Tea Party,swept in Republicans who were more committed to conservative ideology than werepast Republican politicians. In fact, moderate Republicans were jettisoned formore conservative Republicans. The result is a Congress full of ideologicalpurists—deadlock.

Advocates vs. Arguers

Because Congress contains morelawyers than businessmen, doctors or other professionals, there is moredeadlock than usual. That is because lawyers, by trade, are advocates, notarguers. Advocacy and argumentation differ in one very important way—true argumentationis an activity meant to persuade in light of all known facts. Arguers engagewith each other readily accepting that their arguments may be defeated and thatthey may walk away believing something that they did not before the argumentbegan. This attitude is conducive to problem solving and negotiation.Advocates, on the other hand, are concerned only with convincing theunconvinced that their cause is just. They may do so by suppressingcontradictions in their stance or by minimizing evidence that weakens theirposition. Lawyers, professional advocates, earn a living promoting narratives thatthey may not actually believe themselves. (Just think of criminal defenseattorneys who employ advocates’ tactics to let guilty men free, and justifytheir efforts as necessary to defending an individual’s rights, not actions.) Lawyers are known to advance the supremacy of oneset of principles in one case and an opposing set in another. They, asadvocates, walk into negotiations with a viewpoint that they must uphold at allcosts. In short, advocates cannot negotiate. They can only engage in deadlock.

Push Media vs. Pull Media

Push v. Pull (pic3)

Finally, before we place all ofthe blame on our elected representatives, we must examine the stimuli thatinform us before we call our congressmen and insist that they take one positionor another—media consumption. Push media refers to the media that existedbefore the explosion of multiple cable channels, back when the televisionstations would simply turn off at a certain time of night, before the internet,blogs and 24-hour news sites. In the era of push media, virtually everyAmerican was force-fed one viewpoint unless he ventured off the beaten path tofind an alternative. The obvious downside to this reality is that certainassumptions can be fostered by limiting public exposure to debate; indoctrination,propaganda.

Today, with news available at alltimes of the day in many manifestations, with a conservative media thatflourishes alongside a liberal one, with blogs that advocate one viewpoint overanother, consumers can choose what news they wish to internalize. This iscalled pull media. The advantage to pull media is that there are more avenuesfor consumers to receive messages tailored to their interests, and there aremore sources that can help safeguard against indoctrination. The downside isthe proliferation of media echo-chambers—Republicans choose to consume a steadydiet of republicanism and Democrats, a steady diet of liberalism—never thetwain shall meet. In one sense, it is self-indoctrination.

When we exist in these echochambers and call our congressmen, and participate in polls, and threatenpoliticians with our vote, we may be doing so from a position of hardenedideology. To save their jobs, politicians respond to our stimuli and thusly,justify adherence to rigid ideologies. The result—deadlock.

This concept could not have been more plain to me. Why do we decry, instead of expect, governmental deadlock? Despite my explanation,my parents were not convinced. They looked at me with those aforementioned blankstares and simply shrugged as if I were speaking Yoruba. In a last ditcheffort, I decided to pull out the sock puppets:

Sifl and Olly (pic4)

“Mom,” I said, “one man calls forhanging all black people and another argues against it. You are saying that thetwo should simply stop arguing and just act. What exactly should they do? Isn’ttheir deadlock understandable?”

My provocative, silly, examplegot her attention, but she still feigned ignorance. (I’d like to believe thatshe was feigning.) In the end, she simply waved her hands at me dismissively. Ileft, pretending not to be utterly annoyed at allowing myself to be draggedinto another argument where we simply yell at each other like kids.

On the car ride home, I replayedthe conversation in my head—as I often do whenever I debate. Why couldn’t Iconvince them? What could I have offered that would have been more compelling? Whythe deadlock?

It wasn’t long before I found theanswer in my own example: my parents were not arguing with me, they were actingas advocates for the Democratic Party and as ideologically committed liberals. Consideringthat I represent, to them, the embodiment of political evil—a happy, active,erudite, shameless conservative—they were also advocating on behalf of theirown egos. I could not have convinced them with a burning bush. Besides that, myparents consume a heavy regiment of MSNBC virtually all day long (they’reretired), whereas I read the New York Times and other liberal media inpreparation for writing a blog piece each week. Deadlock was more than likely—itwas inevitable.

Article Sources:

[1] http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/sports_viewers.php

Photo Sources: Pic1 from http://blog.self-improvement-saga.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/communication-skills.jpg; Pic2 from http://www.squidoo.com/my-teams-better; Pic3 from http://liveinaustin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/push-pull.jpg; Pic4 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Sifl_and_olly.jpg/250px-Sifl_and_olly.jpg

"Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem Part Two: The Voting Schema"

2011-10-23T20:47:00.002-05:00

“Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem”

Part Two: The Voting Schema

By: J. Hunter

Republicans seem to always beunimpressed with their Presidential nominees. Last time around, in 2008, ourreservations about Senator John McCain led Chris Matthews to describe the differencebetween how Republicans and Democrats choose their candidates by saying thatDemocrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line. If his quip is true, itdoes not have to be. By simply changing our voting model, we can choose abetter candidate—one that better represents our interests, intellect and style.

Two-Stage Primary Voting:

When voters step into the voting boothin a primary election they must answer the question “Who should be the party’snominee?” That question is much more complicated than one may realize. A votermust decide based on a candidate’s shared values, policy positions, style and personalscandals. Often voters are faced with a choice between their preferred candidateand the candidate whom they believe stands the best chance to win the generalelection. In 2008, for example, I preferred Rudy Giuliani to the othercandidates, but by the time Illinoisans voted, McCain was the presumed nomineeand Giuliani’s campaign had sunk. I, therefore, cast my vote for McCain.

Senator John McCain (pic1)

By some measure, McCain was Republicans’first choice and Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were Republicans’ second andthird choice respectively. But what if that were, in fact, not so? What if Republicansreally preferred Sam Brownback, for example, but only chose McCain because theythought that he would do best in the general or because they thought that hewas the inevitable favorite? What if every Republican was not voting forBrownback because they believed that McCain, Huckabee or Romney stood the bestchance of winning the general? Using our current voting schema, there is no wayto really tell who Republicans actually prefer.

With a two-stage voting model, though,the primary voters vote, first, for their favorite candidate. Do you love RickSantorum, but are focusing on the front runners because of poll numbers? In thefirst stage of primary voting, you vote Santorum.

After these votes are tallied,the true favorites will be revealed to the electorate. Voters, then, will votein the second stage election, choosing from among the favorites.

The Drawbacks to Two-StagePrimary Voting:

There are three apparent drawbacksto two-stage primary voting.

First, it is difficult to determine whether theresults from the two-stage system will vary significantly from the results ofthe current system. In other words, maybe Republicans truly wanted McCain to bethe nominee, and a two-stage system would be a long process that produces thesame result.

Second, a two-stage primary wouldcome at twice the cost of the current system. However much it costs to hold aprimary election now, would have to be doubled when the second-stage of theelection occurs.

Voting (pic2)

Third, in a two-stage primary,the people who vote in stage two may not outnumber the people who voted instage one. That would create a situation where a smaller group’s preference isfoisted upon the second group.

While the drawbacks of thetwo-stage voting system must be seriously considered, the benefits could berevolutionary. Candidates with little fundraising skill, but a great message,would hear feedback from the electorate that their message is being heard.Voters would no longer have to look into their crystal ball to determine whichnominee would stand the best chance in the general election and weigh thatpresumption against their favorite choice.

That being said, though, of thetwo solutions that I have proposed to fix the Republican primary process—one thatseems to routinely produce uninspiring nominees, changing the debates isprobably the easiest—and less expensive—fix.

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://www.votetruth08.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/John-Mccain.jpg; "Pic2" from http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-page-main/ehow/images/a04/bk/lh/what-influences-young-voters-800x800.jpg

"Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem Part One: The Debates"

2011-10-16T22:23:00.001-05:00

Simple Solutions to a PersistentProblem

Part One: The Debates

By: J. Hunter

Current GOP Presidential Field (pic1)

Perhaps there is a kind of irony to(or futility in) pleading for change among a people who pride themselves ontheir adherence to tradition, but over the next two weeks, I will plead anyway.It is no secret that there is a disconnect between what polls suggest aboutRepublican satisfaction with the current field of presidential nominees, andreality. Before Texasgovernor, Rick Perry entered the fray, there were many right-wingers poking witha fork at candidates like Congressman Michele Bachmann as if she were road killon a dinner plate—fearing that unless filet mignon arrived soon, they wouldhave to take the inevitable first bite. Now that Perry has arrived—undercookedand oversold, like 2008’s great conservative hope, Senator Fred Thompson—Republicansare once again reticent to dig in. What we want is a reliable standard bearerwho can beat the stumbling, yet rich and eloquent, incumbent president. What wehave is a mob of conservatives who appear, thus far, to be unelectable, and afrontrunner in Mitt Romney who can win, but is not reliably conservative.

New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, gaveRomney a coveted, glowing endorsement earlier this week. Christie, himself, regardedamong Republicans as a Reagan-like figure who can save an uninspiring GOP, hadto decline to run for president almost twenty times before Republicans finallygot the message—another clear signal to the current field of Republicancandidates that the electorate is not pleased. With the specter of 2008 fresh in our minds,an election year where many Republicans unenthusiastically voted John McCainfor president, conservative voters would like to plot a new course—a moreproductive course. The persistent problem is, campaigns and primaries do notalways produce the best candidates—nominees who represent the style, intellectand mood of the primary electorate. The solutions to this problem are so clearand so seemingly obvious that I am amazed that they have yet to be implemented.

Solution One: Replace the Current“Sound-byte Debate Forums” with “Substantive Debates”

Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan (pic2)

Virtually every election year, votersmust endure debates where snowmen ask questions or moderators force candidatesto present complex policy solutions in 30 seconds. The campaign is not much ofa campaign at all—commentators spend the week between debates discussing the “goodlines” from the prior debate and each subsequent debate reveals less about acandidate’s worldview (what voters care about) and more about his ability toquip (what talking heads care about).

This point was expertly made byGrover Norquist, Fred Barnes and Dr. Lee Edwards at a Heritage Foundationlecture about an elucidating debate between Ronald Reagan and William F.Buckley Jr.[1] Buckley and Reagan, two “Titans of Conservatism” shared a disagreementabout foreign policy—the consequence of selling the Panama Canal. There were nocheap jabs meant to harm the opponent personally, or demure his reputation.There were no foolish comments shouted out from the back of the room that endedup detracting from the conversation. The two men, who differed in opinion,simply put forth their ideas and enlightened the audience as they wrestled.

American Enterprise Institute Logo (pic3)

In order to ensure better Republicandebates, Barnes suggested (and I agree) that the debates need to be taken fromcable news networks. Eliminate Fox or CNN debates. Cable news outlets areinterested, first and foremost, in earning ratings—not in promoting productivedebates. They feed on scandal, turmoil and drama—not ideas. Instead,organizations like think tanks, universities, special interest groups orcitizen clubs should host debates. For Republicans, the debates should be heldby conservative organizations, to ensure that the issues that conservativescare about will be front and center.

In a year like this, with so manycandidates running, we could employ a lottery system so that two candidatescould square off and focus on one or two issues. They would have ample time todevelop ideas and better introduce themselves to the people who will be votingfor them. They could address each other and show off their knowledge and depth.Everyone, voters and candidates, would benefit from these exchanges.

Given the unanimous support foran idea like this—support that I have admittedly only gauged anecdotally—I amvery surprised that the debate format has not changed. While it is true thatratings for such a format would probably be low, the audience for whom thedebates are meant to serve would very likely watch and gain more from havingdone so.

Next week, I shall offer a secondidea that I believe should be implemented to ensure that Republicans nominatemore representative candidates in presidential elections.

Article Sources:[1] http://www.heritage.org/Events/2011/10/Reagan-Buckley-Debate

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://images.politico.com/global/news/110906_debatecan_ap_328.jpg; "Pic2" from http://api.ning.com/files/7d9cg5RxNhpM1EK*guUfttvQ*CAusmX7TOWH9XAC8ePQ*gWbCVCY6nBclHeunmkB4XM7KOUMBStASGtQO8kz4bnL1PPydvra/BuckleyReagan.jpg; "Pic3" from http://www.onedayonejob.com/wp-content/uploads/american-enterprise-institute-logo.png

"Are Republicans Jettisoning Federalist Principles in 2012?"

2011-10-09T22:39:00.006-05:00

“Are Republicans Jettisoning Federalists Principles in2012?”

By: J. Hunter

Federalism v. Centralism (pic1)

Both political parties strugglewith the fundamental American question of how to balance passion withprudence—populism with elitism. This conundrum affects our politics to theextent that the political parties, themselves, represent opposite poles (withconservatives favoring populism and liberals favoring elitism) even as they wrestlewith the issue internally. One of conservatism’s greatest appeals to populismis its steadfast advocacy for federalism as the primary answer to most policyquestions. Federalism—the belief in state sovereignty and in the supremacy oflocal governance over detached federal intrusion—is virtually owned by theright. Conservatives often argue that hot button issues like abortion and gaymarriage, for example, may be decided by the electoral will of each local polity.In fact, the right only bristles when a court supplants an electorate’s willwith its own—as was the case in Iowa surrounding the issue of gay marriage.[1] Debatesstemming from the 2012 GOP Presidential Race, however, appear to suggest a waningprimacy of the federalist argument. The implications of such a decline are muchmore dire than many conservatives may realize.

Rick Perry (pic2)

Some Republicans, who are notkeen on the idea of nominating Texas governor, Rick Perry, for President of theUnited States, predicate their hesitation on decisions that he made as thestate executive that are not in line with national Republican positions. He “fellshort” on his prescriptions for issues like illegal immigration and unresponsivehealth policies. His chief rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney,faces criticism on the same ground—that his statewide health insurance fix, uponwhich President Barack Obama based the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct (Obamacare), went against party principles. While each man’s detractors maybe correct in their specific criticisms of the politicians’ policy choices,these reasons should not disqualify either man from earning the Republicannomination for President. In fact, this debate can be a useful tool to helpRepublicans revisit the concept of federalism, in all of its wisdom.

Mitt Romney (pic3)

Federalism is an institution thathelps to safeguard variety in the Republican Party and liberty among Americans.Unlike the Democrats, Republicans are hardly monolithic. Some Republicans arepro-choice. Some support gay marriage, drug legalization and precipitouswithdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. While they have their critics within theparty, they are allowed to coexist peacefully within the GOP big tent. This isa good thing—and while it can partially be attributed to 1960s Fusionism, it isalso partially the result of the belief in federalism. Federalism maintainsthat a population in Georgia differs in many ways from a population in RhodeIsland, and thusly demands different policy solutions to address theirconcerns. It follows, then, that politicians who represent these two diversestates will differ in rhetoric, tone and even policy positions—even if they arefrom the same party.

Two states that are perhaps moremarkedly different from Georgia and Rhode Island are Massachusetts and Texas.Romney and Perry are great illustrations of this point. Governor Perry, a manwho has never lost an election, would be slaughtered at the polls in a placelike Massachusetts. Likewise, Romney would hardly win a mayoral race in Austin.That said, though, both men—Republicans—were very popular with the people whomthey governed. Federalism is nothing if it is not aimed at pleasing the local electoratewith policies that they demand.

Consider, then, that a mainargument against Obamacare is a federalist one: Most Americans did not wantObamacare to pass and they made their voices known at town hall meetings and atballot boxes around the country—though most notably in Massachusetts with theelection of Senator Scott Brown. The Democrat Party, which does not rely onfederalist principles to craft policy, may have fatally harmed itself byforcing a policy upon Americans that they did not favor. Massachusetts’statewide healthcare program (nicknamed Romneycare), on the other hand, was notonly supported by citizens of that state, but it is still wildly popular—garnishingfavorable ratings between 64% and 72%.[2][3][4] WhileI am unsure of how popular Governor Perry’s decision was to mandatevaccinations for HPV and to not urge the building of a fence along the borderof Texas and Mexico, I am sure that the people of Texas have repeatedly electedhim to be their state executive—a positive referendum on his policies.

Federalism is essential to sustainconservatism and liberty. The opposite is governance by a cabal—one either locatedin Washington D.C., or one located in the ideology of strangers scatteredthroughout the nation—but not in your own locale. Surely, there are validreasons to support or detest every candidate running for the GOP nomination.If, however, those reasons run contrary to Federalist maxims, then we mustaccept our new status as new liberals—believing that one policy, created byremoved actors, fits all—a political version of “The Individual Mandate.”

ArticleSources:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html

[2] http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/06/05/support_for_massachusetts_universal_health_care_law_rises/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Top+political+stories

[3] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/politics/romney.health.care_1_health-care-health-insurance-exchange-public-option?_s=PM:POLITICS

[4] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/romneycare-its-working-mostly-and-its-popular-largely/24820/

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://clubtroppo.com.au/files/2011/06/federalism.jpg; "Pic2" from http://ladylibertytoday.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/art_rick_perry_gi.jpg; "Pic3" from http://www.celebrityhousegossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/pictures/mitt-romney_4101/mitt-romney-1.jpg

"This Week in Government Ineptitude: Illinois' Child Care Assistance Program"

2011-10-03T13:08:00.000-05:00

“This Week in Government Ineptitude:

Illinois' Child Care Assistance Program”

By: J. Hunter

Child Care (pic1)

When new parents finally copewith the reality that they must entrust their babies and children toothers—non-relatives in many cases—they want, more than anything to feel securein their decision. The expense of childcare may only compound parents’concerns. On the one hand, childcare can be so expensive as to negate oneparent’s earnings (and ironically, their need for hiring a childcare provider atall). On the other hand, a childcare provider is suspicious if he/she charges arate of $1 per child per day. What is the answer?

Cornelius Osborne was one of manypeople who answered the cries of parents in need by participating in a state ChildCare Assistance Program (CCAP) that subsidized child care for more than 150,000impoverished Illinoisans. There was just one catch. Osborne is a sexoffender—convicted of raping two women. His penchant for robbery also put himon the wrong side of the law, but not before Illinois paid him nearly $5,000 for more thantwo years to baby-sit two children. His stint as a taxpayer funded childcareprovider was cut short when he returned to prison for dealing drugs.

This episode of governmentineptitude was plastered on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.[1]Writers, Matthew Walberg and Joe Mahr, expose that Osborne was not the onlyquestionable character paid by taxpayers to watch children. In fact, he wassimply one of many “convicted rapists, molesters” and “violent felons” whodoubled as subsidized childcare providers. Tremayne Huey, for example, raped a16 year old girl, but Illinoisans paid him $4,800 for subsequently providing childcare. RaheemGray was on parole for weapons and drug charges. He lived, unreported, with hisgirlfriend who was a childcare provider until he went back to prison when aparole check discovered that he had stashed illegally obtained guns under achild’s bed.

Cornelius Osborne (pic2)

Perhaps the most chilling accountrecorded by Walberg and Mahr was that of George Westerfield. George was 54 yearsold when he raped a 16 year old girl who lived with him and was subsequentlyrequired to register as a sex offender. He was not a childcare provider,himself, but he was married to a woman, Lemorial, who CCAP paid to watchchildren. When the Tribune discovered that the address of a sex offender wasalso an address listed as a CCAP location, they paid the home a visit. As onecan imagine, they were surprised when a 6-year old girl answered the door andimmediately retrieved the only available adult—George—to speak to them. George explained thathe was left alone to watch the children while Lemorial ran errands.

CCAP had too many blind spots toavoid such problems. Throughout the expose, mind numbing examples of poorjudgment demonstrate how problems like these were inevitable.

First, claims made on CCAP applicationswere accepted on the “honor system.” Cornelius Osborne, for example, onlylisted drug trafficking as a crime for which he had been convicted. He hadn’tmentioned the rapes, robberies or kidnappings. “And there’s no record anyonechecked further,” the Tribune report states. Illinois Action for Children (IAC),the agency which administers the state paid sitter program in Cook County,never matched the names and addresses of applicants with those in criminaldatabases.

Second, the government processesmove at the speed of glacial majesty. For years, circuit court judges were aghastwhen career criminals, appearing before them on newer charges, were listing theprogram as a means of income. It was not until 2008 when the court’s childprotective division discovered that nobody at CCAP ran background checks on theunlicensed childcare providers. Illinois State Senator, Matt Murphy(R-Palatine), pushed to reform that problem, but the law was not enacted untillate 2009. Even after its codification, the mandate was not implemented foranother 17 ½ months—“even as the state was alerted to sex offenders on itsrolls.”

Sex Offender (pic3)

Third, homes were not checked.The original CCAP applications did not ask who lived in the provider’s home.Therefore, convicted felons, including sex offenders, could reside withchildcare providers completely undetected. The application was recently changedso that applicants are asked to list other occupants, but verification effortsare weak or non-existent. More vigorous verification may have caught RaheemGray, George Westerfield or any of the other dangerous people living withchildcare providers.

Defenders of CCAP reveal theobvious—that it was created with good intentions, in order to help low-incomeresidents continue to earn money to raise them out of poverty. They also claimthat the vast majority of participants are upstanding citizens providing auseful service. Maria Whelan, president of IAC goes so far as to say, “Thisprogram is absolutely essential” for helping these low-income families. KendallMarlowe of the Department of Children and Family Services blames governmentausterity measures—something that simply is not happening in Illinois. “You can’t keep adding water tothe bucket and not expect that at some point it will overflow,” Marlowe states.Both Marlowe and Whelan have a good point in a nation that suffers from toomuch government intervention.

If there were no privatesolutions to childcare, churches or other private organizations, then agovernment program would, indeed, be essential. If the program is essential,then government cut backs, or a shrinking taxpayer base would cause the bucketto overflow. There may very well not be a private childcare option, but that maysimply be because government has entered this arena already.

Dad with Toddler (pic4)

Conservative skepticism ofgovernment is often mischaracterized as indifference to the plight of the poor,or an ideological commitment to selfishness. In reality, though, conservativesobjection to government over-involvement is based on stories like these—storiesthat continue to prove that government is neither nimble enough nor properlyincentivized to provide goods and services as efficiently as the privatesector. Government regularly performs worse than the private sector, and whenit involves itself in areas where private citizens can perform a task better,it prevents citizens from doing so.

People get fooled into believing that whatthe government offers is their due, and they lose the drive and incentive to dothe task better—themselves. CCAP is experiencing the kind of disaster thatwould sink a private childcare provider. Because CCAP is a state program,though, one that operates at the annual taxpayer cost of $750 million, it willlikely continue. The customers are tax payers that may, or may not, use theservice. The potential victims are casualties of a massive, unaccountablebureaucracy that operated for 14 years without ever ensuring the safety of itsmost vulnerable constituents—babies and children.

ArticleSources:

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-sex-offender-baby-sitters-20110828-107,0,2452349,full.story

Photo Sources: "pic1" from http://www.vpr.net/uploads/photos/original/child_care.jpg; "pic2" fromhttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/29/article-0-0DA04C4400000578-255_233x347.jpg; "pic3" from http://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1205_sex_offender.jpg; "pic4" from http://www.toddler-activities-at-home.com/image-files/dad-toddler.jpg

"The Tea Party as a Movement, Not a Faction"

2011-09-25T18:37:00.005-05:00

“The Tea Party as a Movement, Not a Faction”

By: J. Hunter

Tea Party Ad (Pic1)

Since the 2010 election, it hasbeen unclear what will be the future role of the Tea Party. Liberals, dismayedby the group’s influence and efficacy, fancy suggesting that it will become anuncontrollable group of obstructionists and villains. Daniel Stone writes apiece that appears in The Daily Beast claiming that “this ragtag band of proudobstructionists is already looking down the calendar to its next targets:blocking President Obama’s judicial and federal-agency nominations, radicallyrestructuring Medicare and other entitlement programs, and maybe even killingthe gasoline tax.”[1] Godwilling, Stone’s worst nightmare will come true. House Minority Leader NancyPelosi warns that the movement that made her “Minority Speaker” seeks to“[destroy] the public space.” The Democratic Congressman from Indiana, AndreCarson, suspects an even more sinister—and absurd—goal for the Tea Party. “Someof them in Congress right now,” he said at a Black Caucus Job Tour event inMiami, “with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on atree.”[2]

As usual, the liberal perspectiveoffers little intelligent insight. What is more fascinating though, is to considerthe Tea Party’s role in the larger conservative movement. The media portraysthe Tea Party as a faction of the Republican Party that is at odds with theparty’s objectives at large. Dave Cook, writing for the Christian ScienceMonitor, quotes a Republican pollster, Bill McInturff, who believes that theTea Party splits the GOP into thirds. “The groups can vary sharply in terms of‘their issue positions and their intensity.”[3]The Nation’s, John Nichols, writes, “the party with the most seriousdivisions…is the Republicans” because of the Tea Party.[4]Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman, Robert Menendez, reportedlycalled on campaign managers to “drive a wedge between moderate voters andtea-party style conservatives.”[5]

What liberals, media and someconservatives seem to forget is the history of the modern conservativemovement—a movement shaped by decades of sharp disagreement and debate that ledto Fusionism, and ultimately, the modern conservative movement.

Tea Party Protest in Chicago (Pic2)

Fusionism is the coalescence ofthe various ideological sects of the conservative movement into one cohesiveunit. The word “cohesive” is used loosely as you can see remnants ofideological differences still, to this day, between traditional conservativeswho are motivated primarily by matters security, fiscal or social andlibertarians. This process of hard-fought compromising, aimed at repellingliberal plots to expand the size of government, also helped the modernconservative movement sharpen its policy positions and cope with internaldivergent viewpoints. Thus, the idea that the Tea Party could unwind theconservative movement is wishful thinking that ignores the very essence andhistory of conservatism.

That said, however, there isanother aspect of the Tea Party’s relationship with the conservative movementthat may help predict its future—the Tea Party’s ideology. Since the movementbegan, conservatives and liberals alike struggled to define what ideology (ifany) motivated Tea Party conservatives. Are they libertarian budget hawks? Arethey social conservatives motivated to protest by fiscal issues? Whatpercentage of the Tea Party is made up of disaffected liberals or independentvoters? Because the Tea Party does not have a body of literature written bypeople advocating the supremacy of Tea Party ideals, an advantage thatFusionist factions had with writers like Frank Meyer and L. Brent Bozell, thesequestions have largely gone unanswered.

Tea Partier Making the Case against Obama's Deficit Spending (Pic3)

What seems evident, despite theTea Party’s amorphousness, is that the movement consists of many stripes ofconservative. It is libertarian while paradoxically welcoming of religiousvalues. It is fiscally conservative, yet reticent to tackle defense spending.It is pragmatic, though sometimes short-sighted. The Tea Party is a movementbred of the modern conservative movement, not a faction apart fromconservatism. In this regard, it poses no threat to conservatism at all. Fusingwith the Tea Party is impossible, for there is no organized Tea Party withwhich to contend. Instead, it is simply an organic expression of conservativepopulism—an expression that has been met with the same hostility andapprehension as modern conservatism at large. Liberals abhor it because it isconservative, while some conservatives fear it because it is populist—atendency with which prudence-obsessed conservatism struggles.

Questions about the Tea Party’sstaying power are therefore answered: “The Tea Party exists as long as themodern conservative movement exists.” Most importantly, though, the question ofwhether the Tea Party will collapse conservatism, too, is answeredresoundingly: “No.”

ArticleSources:

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/07/tea-party-s-next-targets-blocking-judicial-appointees-killing-gas-tax.html

[2] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/rep-andre-carson-tea-party-wants-to-see-blacks-hanging-on-a-tree/

[3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/1104/Tea-party-splits-GOP-in-thirds-says-Republican-strategist

[4] http://www.thenation.com/blog/156474/split-gop-tea-party-third-party-john-mccain-says-it-could-happen

[5] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tea-party.jpg?w=430&h=410; "Pic2" from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uDG3UJKYe0U/SekOB3ccQtI/AAAAAAAAAj4/S2sDMWczsa0/s320/tea-party-protest-chicago.jpg; "Pic3" from http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RaRg5_v_Eus/SeyO1ZE4lMI/AAAAAAAACnA/ZMoU4lCnbpQ/s400/TeaParty12.jpg

"The Conservative Heart"

2011-09-18T14:27:00.003-05:00

“The Conservative Heart”

By: J. Hunter

"Tim Pawlenty on Neil Cavuto's Fox Show" (Pic1)

The more I watch the Republican presidentialdebates and converse with fellow conservatives, the more I notice the strikingpaucity of a particular quality that had always attracted me to the right—cool,intellectual dispassion. Let me begin with a clarification: I am not arguingthat conservatives or the Republican presidential candidates are stupid or bador pitiful—rather that there is a longing for an appeal to conservative emotionmore than to conservative reason. For example, Tim Pawlenty, the presidential candidatewith the most impressive resume, and he who best represented the right wing’spolicy-wonk lobby, dropped out of the presidential race after finishing adistant third to two firebrands in the much anticipated, and utterlymeaningless, Iowa Straw Poll. He was bested by the sharp-elbowed (gaffe prone) MicheleBachmann, and the unwavering (unelectable) Ron Paul. William Kristol, too,yearned for the intellectual’s conservative to enter the race in the form ofPaul Ryan.[1]However, the brilliant, energetic congressman from South Wisconsin graciouslydeclined to join the fray, leaving Republicans with a heavy supply ofchest-beating, “wrong-but-strong” candidates. Do people like Paul Ryan or TimPawlenty have a place in the fore of the Republican Party today? Why is anelectorate that boasts of being more intellectually than emotionally motivated,so drawn to candidates who appeal to conservatives’ visceral emotion?

The answer is simple—conservatives have lost patience with meekness in the face of hostility. The hostility to which I am referring is that insipid political rhetoric which has been part of Democratic discourse for years, and has been siphoned throughout every corner of the Democratic electorate like water through the roots of a plant.

"Distasteful protest sign calls for harming President Bush" (Pic2)

You needn’t know too much historyto identify examples of conservative-abuse; simply flash back to the last BushPresidency. George W. Bush withstood daily attacks on his intelligence, hismotivations, his morality and, in many cases, his right to exist. Because hebelieved it beneath the office of the presidency to use his position tocounterstrike, Republican laity were burdened with providing his perpetualdefense. The task was a grueling one especially given Bush’s propensity to divenose-first into white-hot political issues.

Badly scarred from the relentlessassault, Republicans were too weary to withstand the left’s attacks for thesake of yet another timid candidate like John McCain. For this reason, the baseresponded enthusiastically when McCain chose as his running mate a fiery, foxy,Sarah Palin, who unflinchingly took up arms against the liberal establishment.As gaffes, winks and unpreparedness weakened Palin’s punches, Republicans fellinto deep despair, and the Obama machine powered through the election virtuallyunimpeded.

What immediately followed forconservatives was a period of self-loathing. Dejection was inevitable given howJohn McCain spent his campaign boastfully accentuating when and why he brokeranks with Republicans. In fact, his convention speech was an admonishment ofthe very people to whom he was speaking. Top GOP officials, like MichaelSteele, raced to explain to the country that Republicans had lost their way andhad deserved the attacks from the left. Glenn Beck at a CPAC convention echoedthat sentiment by conflating Republicans with alcoholics. All the while,liberals smugly nodded and piled on even more criticism. We conservatives feltpublicly shamed. Abandoned. In need of solace.

That solace never came, and as wehobbled back to our feet, sharp liberal criticism continued to mount. The Departmentof Homeland Security, for example, warned police departments nationwide that run-of-the-millconservatives were prone to becoming rightwing extremists simply because of thepresident’s race.[2] The TeaParty, too, was smeared as a violent group of thugs—implicated for producingthe Times Square bomber,[3]for yelling gay and racial slurs at congressmen who voted for Obamacare,[4] andcalled terrorists and suicide vest-wearing jihadis by prominent liberals,[5] includingVice President Joe Biden.[6] Liberalsblamed Republicans for Jared Lee Loughner’s psychotic attack on CongresswomanGabrielle Giffords, and called Republicans “Son of a bitches,” [sic][7]and “barbarians” (another Biden gem).[8]

So, how does this relate to thecurrent Republican field, or to the emotional pulse that is surging on theright?

"Rick Perry" (Pic3)

These examples show how Republicans,for years, have been putting up with these kinds of attacks and are longing fora feisty defender. Who better than Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry could defendthe honor of the “slighted right?” While Jon Huntsman appears uncomfortablesharing a stage with other conservatives, Perry is cheered wildly for unabashedlysupporting one of the most basic conservative institutions—capital punishmentfor murderers.

"Michele Bachmann" (Pic4)

As a committed conservative, I,too, look forward to the day that liberal ideas are defeated and their rhetoricis finally exposed as truly hateful and unproductive. The only way this canhappen, though, is if Republicans win. The only way Republicans win is byrelying on our tradition of intellectual—though still spirited—debate. We cansuccumb to passion, but we must never do so at the expense of reason. Thatmeans that we should examine what passions lead our presidential candidates tobelieve that thumbing their nose at a debt-ceiling increase, while alsorejecting John Boehner’s “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan, increases theirconservative credentials. We should ask ourselves why we cheer Rick Perry’sharsh characterizations of the Social Security program louder than we cheer acandidate’s plans to solve its crisis.

In the end, I believe that weconservatives will come back to our senses. We must if we want to win. We mustif we want to be vindicated—if we ever want to answer, once and for all, theinsipid attacks from the left.

ArticleSources:

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/31/kristol-wants-a-ryan-rubio-gop-ticket-for-2012#ooid=hpbWJwMjqlQVv4ve6nMxFsVCBFMiwaxY

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

[3] http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/05/03/cbs-features-ny-mayor-bloomberg-speculating-bomber-was-mad-about-obamac

[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/20/congressman-claims-health-care-bill-protesters-hur/

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/the-tea-partys-war-on-america.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

[6] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

[7] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

[8] http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/vice-president-joe-biden-calls-republicans-barbarians-for-second-time

Photo Sources: Pic1 from http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/tim%20pawlenty%20cavuto.jpg; Pic2 from http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/08/Press%20Largely%20Ignored%20Hostile%20Protester%20Rhetoric%20Towards%20Bush.jpg; Pic3 from http://doninmass.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/r-rick-perry-large570.jpg; Pic4 from http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bachmann-7.jpg

"How to Win (and Lose) in 2012"

2011-09-11T21:00:00.000-05:00

“How to Win (and Lose) in 2012”

By: J. Hunter

Virtually every poll in Americareflects that President Barack Obama is incredibly vulnerable, and may verywell be replaced in the 2012 election. Liberals who welcomed the “Hope andChange, Post-Racial, Citizen of the World President” with orgasmic elation arenow disillusioned after seeing him fail to make the case for Obamacare, fail toprecipitously end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fail to close the prison inGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, and fail to end the Bush tax cuts. (A list of his majorpolitical shortcomings is much longer than can be enumerated without losing thereader.) In fact, Obama has virtually no victories to boast about, and afterthe Republicans made massive electoral gains in 2010, they are eager abouttheir chances to win the presidency. Hungry Republicans are surroundinghim—salivating. However, if they are not careful, they may starve.

What must Republicans do toensure victory? They must remain disciplined—focused.

The most important issue facingour country is financial—government debt, unemployment and growing the Americaneconomy so that it becomes more competitive.

President Obama’s task uponentering office was to rectify our fiscal house and place us on firm footingagain. To that end, he passed a $787,000,000,000 stimulus package that failedto stimulate the economy. Unemployment rose sharply and remained high. He thencontinued Bush policies of federal bail outs—Obama bested his predecessor inthat arena by accelerating those programs. All the while, Obama borrowed limitlesssums of money to support his record spending levels. He spent even more thanhis predecessor.[1] Thoughthese policies failed to bear fruit, the president took his eye off of ourcurrent problems and spent his energy on an expensive (and unconstitutional)health care plan that bogged the nation down in onerous regulations thatfurther staunched growth. His inability to stay focused on the pressing task athand will be his undoing, as long as Republicans can resist following suit.

Liberals are well-aware that thepresident has failed at his singular responsibility—reversing the economicdownward spiral. No longer do we hear about how much worse the economy would behad it not been for Obama’s fiscal prowess. Instead, liberals have chosen topaint Republicans as religious fanatics—“too scary to be elected.”

For example, immediately afterTexas Governor, Rick Perry, entered the presidential race, and before he hadparticipated in a single debate, liberal writers began painting him as areligious extremist. Perry isn’t singularly attacked on these grounds—CongresswomanMichele Bachmann received the same treatment at the moment of her meteoric riseto the top of the Republican list of favorable candidates. Articles about “RickPerry’s Army of God,”[2] orthose challenging his Christian bona fides[3]are sideshows. So, too, are the brain-dead pieces about Bachmann and Perryendorsing a fringe Christian theology that teaches worlddomination—Dominionism.[4]

The aim of such silly speculationis to change the subject from the true issue at hand—the American economy andPresident Obama’s fiscal policies. The Republican candidates and electorateshould recognize this as the case and not take the liberal bait. They shouldavoid conversations about personal theology, the 1964 Voting Rights Act,[5]Obama’s birthplace, or how to impeach him.[6]

The 2012 presidential race canand should unseat the incumbent executive. The momentum is with the G.O.P., butnothing in politics is inevitable and even less is guaranteed.

ArticleSources:

[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

[2] http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god

[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/is-rick-perry-as-christian-as-he-thinks-he-is/243616/

[4] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html

[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/herman-cain-impeaching-obama_n_928882.html

Photo Sources: "Obama" from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/obamalibya.jpg; "Rick Perry" from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2K-fhtXRjts/TgtZH-6wapI/AAAAAAAAMuw/Rp_NPbOVUDU/s1600/rick%2Bperry%2Bthumbs%2Bup.jpg

"Progressive Conservatism"

2011-09-04T16:12:00.004-05:00

“Progressive Conservatism”

By: J. Hunter

You hear it all the time: someone claims that we are living in a doomed era. “The 1940s or 1950s were a much better time in America than today.” Often, this nostalgic speaker is a conservative—pining for the good old days. After all, the acronym GOP stands for “Grand Old Party,” and the Tea Party itself is named after a rebellion that took place way back in 1773. Today’s Tea Partiers sometimes even dress in old colonial garb—an outward display of this nostalgic yearning. When one thinks of conservatism, the sepia-colored image of a time long-past comes to mind. Such yearning for the past is not as powerful an influence on the political left.

Liberals’ heyday was the 1960s—a time when America, like Enlightenment Europe, was forced to rethink its society and to decide what the future would look like from that point on. Clearly, liberals had this in mind when they sought to improve their marketability and reintroduce the word “progressive” (a word popularized in the 1920s) to replace the “liberal” label. Hillary Clinton, herself, famously claimed that the word “liberal” had been hijacked, and that she, herself, prefers the term progressive to liberal.[1] The very label “progressive” implies innovation, improvement, and evolution.

Ironically, though, the labels’ connotations could not be more mis-matched.

As it happens, progressive ideas serve only to place modern people into antiquated social arrangements. Most of their policies, at least in the abstract, are old ideas. Completely jettisoning modern marvels of the 20^th century—petroleum and the combustion engine—in favor of windmills, trains and bicycles is an example of this rearward thinking. (Windmills were developed in the 1^st century A.D. Bicycles and trains are technologies from the early 19^th century.) Free market capitalism is an idea that is slightly older than the late 1700s. Progressives, though, reject free market capitalism for something that more closely resembles a command economy, much like that which existed in the medieval days of European monarchy before the merchant class burgeoned—Yet another example of progressivism’s yearning to preserve tradition. Progressives are also more accommodating to the notion of borderless countries—idealizing a time before the nation-state—most recently illustrated by President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign stop in Berlin, Germany as “a fellow citizen of the world.”[2] The list of old progressive ideas is almost as long as any list of their policy positions.

Surely, there are some policies of progressivism that are brand new—introducing homosexual marriage for the first time in human history, for example—but in general, progressives traffic in ancient wares.

For conservatives, the nostalgic yearning for yesteryear is a symptom of benign romanticism more than it is an actual policy aim. Indeed, a balanced budget amendment is a novel idea—newer than state-run healthcare by decades. So, too, are the consumption tax and the flat tax.

Promoting clean nuclear power is a much newer idea than windmill. School vouchers programs are innovative, whereas continuously pouring more money into failing schools is not. In fact, the very effort of rejecting the natural trajectory of increasing government intrusion—a trend that is seen throughout history and all over the world—in favor of individual liberty and more localized governance is more radical than any plausible political theory in existence today.

Clearly, it is conservatism, not progressivism, that boldly looks beyond the past. Conservatives should embrace this fact—looking to the past with appropriate admiration, while using its lessons to forge an even brighter future.

Article Sources:

[1] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/24/125521.shtml?s=lh

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24text-obama.html

Photo Sources:

"Windmill" from http://digitalart.org/images/artwork/0062000-62283/fantasy/old-windmill.jpg; "Nuclear Power Plant" from http://www.w2agz.com/Library/Nuclear/How%20Nuclear%20Power%20Works/printable_files/nuclear-power-a.jpg

"Black and Red Returns September 4th"

2011-08-30T12:36:00.007-05:00

"Black and Red Returns September 4th"

By: J. Hunter

Every week you received updates in your inbox.

Your RSS list grew one entry longer.

You were tweeted or you found an article on digg.com.

And then…Silence.

On September 4^th, Black and Red returns from hiatus to present you with more unique political perspectives.

Get involved with policy debates that take you beyond the television talking points.

Vote in polls to gauge where you stand with other readers.

Make your opinions heard by commenting, and get immediate responses in the weekly “Free Exchange” articles.

How to Subscribe:

If you don’t already subscribe to the RSS feed of this blog, please do! It’s easy. Subscribing to Black and Red will update you every time a new piece posts.

For you Firefox users, simply click on the orange radio dial in your URL toolbar.

For Internet Explorer simply press Alt + J.

Follow Black and Red on twitter at @blkandred.

September 4^th is Black and Red’s 4^th birthday! Commemorate it by helping to keep it vigorous and dynamic.

Thank you for your continued support.

Osama bin Laden is Dead

2011-05-01T22:33:00.004-05:00

Osama bin Laden is dead.

God Bless America.

"The Smutty Professor"

2011-03-06T22:18:00.004-05:00

“The Smutty Professor”
Or
“After School Special”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

Northwestern University made headlines this week not because it is home to another Nobel Peace Prize winner, but because of smut. On February 21st, Professor J. Michael Bailey held an after-class session for his Human Sexuality Students that focused, at least in part, on female orgasm and female ejaculation. After holding a discussion and watching a video about female orgasm, Bailey and one of his guest speakers, Ken Melvoin-Berg, presented a couple (Jim Marcus and Faith Kroll) that labored (for about three minutes) to add to the experience. Kroll completely undressed and Marcus brought her to orgasm with a mechanical toy (imagine a reciprocating saw with a phallus instead of a blade) before a live audience of about 100 voyeurs—many of whom are teenagers. News of the event was relatively slow to surface, but when it inevitably did, it brought a storm of controversy upon the professor and upon the elite university.

At first, Northwestern stood behind Bailey. Dean of Students, Burgwell Howard argued that the demonstration likely “falls within the broad range of academic freedoms.” University spokesman, Alan Cubbage said, “Northwestern University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.”[1] Not long after these statements were made, and as opposition mounted, the university’s president, Morton Schapiro, came out against the demonstration. Schapiro, reportedly “troubled and disappointed” by the event, called for an investigation of the event’s specifics and stated that he feels it “represented poor judgment on the part of [NU’s] faculty member.”[2] Schapiro continued, “I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission.” I concur.

Given the population of the university—young and very liberal—one can hardly say that the debate about the demonstration rages. Most conversations about it appear to be supportive of the professor. They involve giggling and dramatic soapbox speeches that rail against America’s puritanical views about sex and self-discovery. Bailey, himself, joined in the soapbox speeches “heroically” refusing “to surrender to sex negativity and fear.”[3] He even offered a defensive “apology” in which he gave his critics an “F” for their arguments.[4] “Those who believe that there was, in fact, a serious problem have had considerable opportunity to explain why: in numerous media stories on the controversy, or in their various correspondences with me…they have failed to do so.”

On the other side of the debate, though, are those who found Bailey’s decision deplorable and unfortunate. Schapiro acknowledges that he has received many complaints about the demonstration. The source of those complaints must factor in to his decision to so strongly denounce Bailey’s sex show. Has Bailey alienated prospective donors who, in a tough economy, are considering where to donate their money? The tactical realities must also affect Northwestern’s response: Is Bailey, a 21-year veteran, tenured? Does the university have the latitude to remove a professor who attracts negative attention and displays a tendency toward self-righteous martyrdom?

While Bailey argues that his critics have not sufficiently argued against his demonstration, he has failed to argue the intellectual and ethical support for his show. Few may oppose a psychology class about human sexuality—at least offering such a class is easy to defend. Perhaps one could even argue persuasively that such a class about female orgasm or female ejaculation is a worthy academic endeavor. (Or maybe I am ceding too much ground) Defending a live, public demonstration of the phenomenon, performed by an unmarried couple that revels in sexual exhibitionism and kink to an audience of teens is much more difficult. The glaring question one has for Bailey and the University is, “To what end did this performance serve?” The answer, thus far, is “to shock”—hardly an intellectual pursuit.

Since William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale,” the elite university has been scrutinized as a place where intellectualism is replaced with indoctrination. The thesis of Buckley’s debut book was that undergraduates, through their university-required course-loads, are subjected to texts and professors that uniformly reject Judeo-Christian ethics and are, instead, taught the superiority of more mutable secular mores. Other works, making the same argument, have spawned with more contemporary examples. This demonstration at Northwestern fuels the argument that the elite university promotes and defends anti-social behavior—at an annual cost to parents of about $52,000.

Undeniably, Bailey’s demonstration helps to tarnish the reputation of the Northwestern diploma and faculty (those who defend him), and it also calls into question the ethical, intellectual and even political state of higher education. An 18 year old student was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying, “Over time people will become more liberal. I don’t think it will be an issue.”[5] This indoctrination, not education, may very well prove to be the paramount objective of the elite university.

Article Sources:
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-northwestern-to-pay-for-live-sex-toy-demonstration-20110302,0,1112568,full.story
[2] http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/statement-president.html
[3] http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/Baileystatement.pdf
[4] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-nu-prof-apology-20110305,0,5125783,print.story
[5] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-northwestern-to-pay-for-live-sex-toy-demonstration-20110302,0,6946298,print.story

Photo Sources: "Scott Hall at Northwestern University" from http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2541836861_663b6b9d2a.jpg; "Professor J. Michael Bailey" from http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-03/59897019.jpg; "Northwestern University President, Morton Schapiro" from http://www.chicagotop100.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/schapiro1.jpg;

"Uphill Budget Battles"

2011-02-23T13:03:00.005-05:00

“Uphill Budget Battles”
Or
“A Nation of Cowards”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

Madison, Wisconsin looks like Egypt’s Tahrir Square, packed with demonstrators livid with their executive. Unlike in Wisconsin, however, the protesters in Egypt had a point. Liberals in Wisconsin were sparked to action when Republican Governor, Scott Walker released his budget which called for restraining state spending during this horrible economic downturn. Walker’s liberal critics have made many arguments against his budget: Some claim that there really is no budget crisis, others, that Walker wants to severely weaken or end Wisconsin unions. According to many of those indignant voices in opposition, Walker should have simply pretended that there is no budget crisis at all, or fixed the crisis by increasing taxes. Wisconsin’s budget deficit currently stands at $137,000,000, which is not bad compared to its Southern neighbor, Illinois. The Badger State’s deficit, though, is projected to rise to $3.6 billion in the next two years.[1] It, like many states, struggles to reign in public employee costs—much of which may be remedied by implementing common sense reforms. Walker promoted such common sense solutions in his bold budget, and for so doing has earned the ire of millions of angry demonstrators.

Coming to Walker’s defense, the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards compares the public employee realities of Virginia and Wisconsin—a comparison that demonstrates how mild Walker’s budget is, despite what his critics maintain. In Virginia, for example, the debt as a share of income is 2.1%, whereas in Wisconsin that number is 4.6%.[2] In Virginia, the state’s unfunded pension obligations as a share of GDP is only 17%. In Wisconsin, it is 32%. Interestingly, a past Virginia governor, Democrat, Douglas Wilder, banned government employee collective bargaining in 1993. Wisconsin’s state and local workers—52% of which are union members—still have the ability to bargain collectively, and Walker plans to keep it that way.

As it stands currently, though, no action will take place until Wisconsin’s 14 congressional Democrats, who fled the state last week to avoid a vote, return to duty. Republican Senator Leah Vukmir supports Walker’s budget and believes that she is joined by a “silent majority” of Wisconsinites and Americans. A new Pew Research poll, touted by the Center for American Progress (CAP), is not encouraging to Vukmir or her phantom “silent majority.”[3] Instead, the findings of the study show that large swaths of Americans not only reject cutting federal and local budgets, but they would actually like to see funding increases in many sectors. This news should depress every American who wants to seriously and substantively deal with skyrocketing budget deficits. More directly, it threatens to undermine Republican executives who labor to balance budgets responsibly.

CAP’s Ruy Teixeira writes that according to the Pew Research study, “there is little public support for spending cuts.”[4] In a sample of 18 areas of government, less than 30 percent of Americans viewed spending cuts as the answer to plugging budget holes. The study shows the least amount of enthusiasm for cutting veteran benefits, education, Medicare, Social Security, public schools and college financial aid. Of greatest importance to Republican governors, like Scott Walker, national support for cutting public employee pension plans is evenly split at 47%. Teixeira ends his piece, “At some point you’d think conservatives would realize that they and the public are not on the same page when it comes to cutting government spending. But that would require looking beyond ideology to actual realities. I suppose we shouldn’t hold our breath.” If politicians went the way of this Pew poll, we wouldn’t hold our breath for economic rehabilitation either.

A more optimistic, yet still troubling poll, conducted by Gallup, illustrates a slightly different take on budget cutting’s popularity. This poll shows that reducing or eliminating state programs as a means of balancing state budgets is equally favored and disfavored (47% favor, 48% opposed).[5] By a 9 point margin, 53% of Americans oppose reducing pay or benefits for state workers. Expectedly, though, 71% of Americans oppose tax increases.

What does this data say about America’s grasp of the fiscal crisis? Volumes. Teixeira’s piece seems to suggest that Americans are wholly against budget cuts and Republican ideas. With just a little more data, though, it is clear that the public does not subscribe to Democrats’ plan to balance budgets by raising taxes either. Instead, the studies validate the claim of Paul Ryan and President Barack Obama’s own Debt Commission that every single American will feel some of the pain from the measures necessary to correct our fiscal path. Generally speaking, people do not want to see funding for anything cut. In an ideal world, pensions would be sky-high and no one would suffer as a result. The world is not ideal, though, and neither is America’s economy. The liberals protesting in Wisconsin and the swaths of people who stand firmly against budget cuts are simply cowards—too immature or afraid of doing what is necessary to avoid fiscal Armageddon. The easy answer is always to balance hard decisions on the backs of someone else (tax the rich, cut someone else’s pension, etc.). It is inevitably clear, though, that hard times are ahead for us all. No amount of picketing or self-delusion can change that.

Article Sources:
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/20/video-myths-vs-facts-of-the-wisconsin-union-protest/
[2] http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wisconsin-virginia-and-public-sector-unions/
[3] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/snapshot021411.html
[4] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/snapshot021411.html
[5] http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx

Photo Sources: "Protester in Madison, WI" from http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-wisconsin-protest-hitler-sign2.jpg; "Pew Research Study Numbers" from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/snapshot021411.html; "Fiscal Rescue" from http://www.thedebtcrisis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Fiscal-Crisis_012111-572x368.jpg

"Toward Explaining Liberal Affinity for Government Agencies"

2011-02-14T00:39:00.004-05:00

“Toward Explaining Liberal Affinity for Government Agencies”
Or
“Liberal Honors”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

Years ago, a friend of mine who served in the U.S. Army in the eighties told me a story that, in many ways, represented a time long past. Tracy V., a small, soft-spoken black kid, was a grunt in the elite 9th regiment—an outfit that was decommissioned after the first Gulf War. They were a small force, close-knit from eating, training, partying and fighting together. Before they invaded Panama, Tracy was engaged in a civil conversation with a man in his cohort. The man said to him,

“I don’t care about race. In fact, I hear a lot of people talking about niggers, but I hadn’t laid eyes on a nigger until I joined the Army. No, I don’t care about race, I’ve trained with you and I trust you. I know you’ve got my back and you know that I’ve got yours. As long as that arrangement is in place, I don’t care where you came from.”

Two decades had passed by the time Tracy had told me the tale, and five more years have passed since I first heard the story. Still, though, I find the tale to be quite moving despite its racial elements. Tracy was not offended by the comment, aside from being referred to with a racial epithet. He did not complain to a commander, or run to the media, or write a book claiming that the Army did not do enough to counter racial prejudice. Tracy simply understood that people are not perfect, and appreciated that the man who stood before him—however provincial—could be counted on to protect him. The bonds that men formed while serving in the military transcended politics and eventually race—at least as demonstrated by this tale.

Fast forward to January of this year. A news story that focused on the antics and punishment of a Navy Captain, Owen Honors, was overshadowed by the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.[1] The Honors story, though, offers great insight into the different ways in which liberals and conservatives view how organizations should operate. It also epitomizes a decline in America’s most beloved institution.

By all accounts, Captain Owen Honors had a bright future ahead of him. He was the executive officer (XO) on the longest naval vessel in the world, the world’s first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Enterprise. Weekly, he would broadcast 20-minute comedic videos on the ship’s closed-circuit television meant to boost morale. One video, though, mysteriously came to the attention of the Navy and the media—one Honors made 5 years prior—that was named raunchy, offensive, beyond-the-pale and punishable. The video was peppered with scenes of two female and two male sailors showering together (no nudity shown), simulated masturbation scenes and scenes of eating feces. The Navy acted fast, relieving Honors, who had since the video’s production been promoted to Admiral, from his duties.

Surely, the videos were puerile, but why did they cost an officer his position? Raunchy behavior is not altogether alien to sailors. We often refer to someone who liberally uses profanity, for example, as having a mouth like a sailor. Moreover, the video was not raunchier than what is typically broadcast on MTV, and was viewed by a much more select and limited audience. Media outlets, however, focused on one fact above all as a primary point for outrage, Honors’ joking reference to another sailor as “fag-boy.”

To hear Honors actually use the word “fag,” one must hunt down an unedited version of his video. In fact, in many media accounts of the Honors affair, the word “fag” or “faggot” is treated as gingerly as the word “nigger”—which is also known as the verboten “N-word”. Virginian-Pilot writer, Corinne Reilly, New York Times’, Elisabeth Bumiller, and the Associated Press’ Dena Potter and Steve Szkotak never refer to the words “fag” or “faggot” in their articles. Instead, they employ euphemisms like “gay slur[2],” “anti-gay slur,[3]” and “derogatory term for gay men.”

Media also denied that Congress’ ending the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which met its demise a mere week before the Honors story surfaced, played any role in Honor’s demotion. Considering that it is still unclear how the video reached media outlets and that a leading military gay rights group—Servicemembers Legal Defense Network[4]—was out in front of the story the moment it broke making statements against Honors, the media claim is dubious. Note also that women’s groups calling for Honors’ reprimand were conspicuously absent in this case. The role of a liberal “homosexual cabal” is difficult to assert. The hard facts of this case are that an admirable admiral lost his job because he made a generally objectionable video—one that particularly offended homosexuals—that was beneath the moral standard of a naval officer.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Honors’ firing, the episode does illustrate an important point about liberalism. Liberals prefer government and public bureaucracies to private businesses partly because of accountability standards. Though the military is an institution comprised mostly of conservative members, it is still a government bureaucracy. That means that Honors, and other personnel, may be dismissed for running afoul of moral codes—in this case, liberal moral codes. A soldier’s performance prior to making a gaffe or saying something unbecoming does not factor in to the judgment to remove him from his post. All that matters is that he voiced an opinion or shared a sentiment that may be racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted. Likewise, liberals believe that government is similarly accountable through the franchise. Government officials who underperform or perform badly are removed in a way that does not happen in private organizations. When Shirley Sherrod, for example, was wrongfully accused of being a racist, President Barack Obama’s administration fired her immediately—without due process. Her alleged crime mandated that she be dealt with swiftly and harshly, despite her prior allegiance and support. This example shows the swift remedial action that liberals like, but also highlights the danger of such impetuousness.

Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer private businesses and organizations to government, believing that profit is to business what the vote is to politicians. When business goes afoul of the public, people vote with their wallets. Perhaps had the Navy followed a more conservative path, Honors’ whole record would have outshined his moment of carelessness. (As an aside, maybe his record was, in fact, reviewed, and Honors was considered ripe for dismissal—I do not know.)

This dichotomy explains why liberals and conservatives spar so often about the nature and responsibility of government and business. Henry Ford, according to a liberal, should be remembered infamously for his anti-Semitism, not for his ingenuity and bravery, as conservatives would be most likely to remember him. Perhaps this stems from a difference in opinion about Original Sin and the fallen nature of man—concepts that lead conservatives to accept minor moral infractions—especially those of thought or opinion. I must wrestle with that assertion.

Finally, though, the Honors case demonstrates another worrisome trend—the end of traditional manliness in a traditionally manly institution. I was personally amazed by how many soldiers and ex-soldiers worked to dissuade me from joining the military. Unsolicited by me, I heard stories about how the military was losing its edge. It was increasingly becoming less of a place where boys can become men, and more a lab that tried to blend political correctness and multiculturalism with hating and killing the S.O.B.s who threaten my American tribe. Such a mix cannot coexist. Our enemies call us dogs and pigs and infidels—deserving of death. In most of the Arab world they hang and stone men for being “fags.” American liberals forbid us from calling those enemies “Islamic radicals” and, through their social engineering of the military, will prevent us from fighting for that [anti-gay slur]’s freedom.

Article Sources:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/04military.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
[2] http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/112935329.html
[3] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/02/nation/la-na-navy-videos-20110102
[4] http://www.sldn.org/

Photo Sources: "U.S. Army Soldiers" from http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/iraq-soldiers-766811.jpg; "Adm. Owen Honors" from http://apusa.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Owen-Honors.jpg; "MTV Skins" from http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lanpjdyc2U1qz7um3o1_r1_500.png; "Shirley Sherrod and Barack Obama" from http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/07/23/alg_resize_shirley-sherrod_barack-obama.jpg;

"And it Gave a Lovely Light"

2011-02-07T00:56:00.003-05:00

“And it Gave a Lovely Light”
Or
“Yet Another ‘Mea Culpa’”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

“You’ve said to me that you burn the candle at both ends,” Anderson Cooper said to a now frail Christopher Hitchens.[1]

Quick-witted Hitch fired back, “And it gave a lovely light.”

Every once in a while, much more often than I would like, but not often enough to fret, I fall behind on this blog. I always apologize to my readers for it, as I am always very sorry to miss weeks of writing. What bothered me most about this most recent lapse, though, is that it was more protracted than normal and it affected more of my life than usual.

At this point, I am a student, a father, a husband, a church member and volunteer. I am a brother, son, and friend. I am a citizen, a conservative and an essayist. Each of these roles in life demand different amounts of dedication and effort in order to fulfill them adequately. Last month, though, I spent the majority of my energies in school—much to the detriment of some of my other priorities in life.

My wife and I, for example, see a little less of each other than we used to. Even when my plate filled and over-filled in the past, we used to work in different departments of the same entity and would commute and go on lunch together daily. Recently, she has left the organization and we have been relegated to the 21st Century version of passing notes in between class periods—Google Chat.

I [heart] you, dear. “BRB”

At church I organize a group of volunteers called Generations. We make food for friendly residents at a local retirement home and play games with them. We even provide prizes for game winners. It’s really fun and it is a great chance to serve others. My studies, though, have eaten into this activity as well.

Two weeks ago, my kindly pastor sent me an email asking if I was overwhelmed—too overwhelmed to volunteer as vigorously as I have in the past. Admittedly, I was a little embarrassed to receive such an email. It was a necessary wake up call that perhaps I was finally overextended. At church he told me that I wasn’t being singled out—that he had sent the email out to all volunteers in the congregation. While that excuse may serve as a great way to spare my ego, I believe him.

“I’ll respond to your email ASAP, Pastor,” I vowed.

I have yet to do so. I will though, when I get a free moment.

Lastly (to be mentioned, but not the last victim of my tight schedule) are my other close relationships that I would hate to see languish. My best friend BJ, a regular commenter on Black and Red, is adding finishing touches to a website that he has poured himself into completely. It is about conservative politics, Christianity, music and life in general. He asked me to review it for him: I will BJ. I promise.

Coincidentally, the last time I saw BJ I told him about the article for Black and Red that I was writing. We were sitting with another friend in a liberal coffee shop in Evanston after one of my classes. The cash register bore a picture of George W. Bush with devil horns, and vegan, barefoot, hippy-types sipped soymilk chai and dreamed of high-speed rail at every table around us. I told the guys that I was working on a piece about Admiral Honors, the high-profile victim of liberal hate speech-police. As we spoke, news of Gabrielle Giffords’ brush with death broke, and by the time I sat to work on my article, I was writing instead about her.

Posted below is the article that I wrote that week about the Giffords shooting. It is surely dated by now, but it may be relatively insightful nonetheless. Coming soon is the Honors article and another more recent piece that will catch me up with the ever-changing world of politics.

I truly do appreciate the readership and patience of each of you. Without you, this blog would be a silent graveyard littered only with the ranting of an obscure nobody. When I spoke to BJ last, I was in a rush—in between something and something else. He said to me, “Don’t worry about falling behind here and there. You’ll catch up. Those who know and love you understand what keeps you busy.” I appreciate the support and I know that his words are true.

To those of you who do not know me, and those who do, burning the candle at both ends is my life. Sometimes things get a little messy for me, but I love struggling to keep both ends ablaze. In my endeavors I want nothing more than to continue to emit a lovely light.

Thank you for your understanding and readership. More articles are on the way.

Article Sources:

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV_TuHfPBQ4

Photo Sources: "Christopher Hitchens" from http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/HitchensCancer.jpg; "Lutheran Rose" from http://www.lutheran-resources.org/images/rose3.gif; "Hippy" from http://ammaryasir.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/haight-hippie.jpg

"Liberals, Lies and Loughner"

2011-02-07T00:19:00.004-05:00

“Liberals, Lies and Loughner”
Or
“America’s (Un)Civil War”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

Throughout the last week, conservatives have endured insipid slanders and venomous libels—all of them embarrassingly daft and unimaginative—after a maniac went on a shooting spree in Arizona. Jared Lee Loughner shot 20 people with a Glock 9mm. He killed 6, including a 9 year old girl, and injured 14, including a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. The tragic event was familiar in many ways—most strikingly in regards to Loughner’s profile. Loughner, like so many assassins and would-be assassins, was a lone nut who gave up in the struggle to stay grounded in reality.[1] He was obsessed with conspiracy theories: He believed that George W. Bush and secret agents within the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. He believed in the 2012 apocalypse as predicted by the Mayans. He even believed in a most absurd theory that I previously had never even heard of—the David Wynn Miller Grammar conspiracy.[2]

Despite Loughner’s obvious instability, though, liberals have insisted that conservatives are complicit in the murder—that conservative political rhetoric is distinctly insipid and is what inspired Loughner to act. Nothing could be more absurd, insulting and hypocritical.

The ridiculous assertion demonstrates a wanton lack of historical knowledge and assumes rationality of an irrational actor. History is full of assassins who were deranged and lacked any clearly defined worldview. Moreover, the tendency of rational people is to erroneously assign rational motives to irrational actions in order to help them conceptualize and come to terms with tragedy. What liberals have done, though, is to exploit that human tendency to score political points by naming conservatism as the culprit—the catalyst that sent Loughner over the top. According to them, conservative rhetoric is singularly base and inspires violence. They decry the splinter in our eye, while the beam protrudes conspicuously from their own.

For example, New York Times columnist, Bob Herbert, wrote that the “vitriol that has become an integral part of our political rhetoric” comes “most egregiously from the right.”[3] Seven days earlier, though, Herbert called Republicans “hard-hearted,” “compulsively destructive,” “larger-than-life villains,” “a gang that almost wrecked the country,” and a group for whom spreading misery is “what it does best.”[4] Those insults resided all in one article. On Wednesday of that week, Ed Schultz called Republicans “bastards,” and vowed to fight them whenever possible.[5] Keith Olbermann routinely (and never unexpectedly) named Republicans “The Worst Person in the World.” Bill Maher defended people who wished death on Dick Cheney. “If he [Cheney] did die, more people would live.”[6]

Of course, the most predictable rejoinder would be that the organized left cannot control the language of independent commentators. However, if we were to move from the realm of commentators to that of politicians, skipping the easy targets—like Representative Pete Stark who said that Bush found amusement in soldiers being killed in Iraq, and Howard Dean, who as the Chairman of the Democrat Party said that he hates Republicans and claimed that Republicans want children to go to bed hungry at night—and go right to the leader of the Democrat Party, President Barack Obama, we would find that much of the vitriol finds quarter within the top levels of the Democratic leadership.[7][8] Obama in the run up to the midterm elections referred to Republicans as “enemies,”[9]and told them (in a bizarre twist of racial irony) to “ride in the back” of the bus.[10] Democrats have made their fair share of vicious claims about Republicans, so for them to point the finger of blame at Republicans is just another case of Democrat projection—assigning to conservatives ills that they, themselves, hold.

Did the left take responsibility for people like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer who railed against the wealthy and the Bush administration? What about Joseph Stack who flew an airplane into the IRS building and repeated liberal slanders about big businesses—does the left claim him? Jim Jones was an ultra-left wing activist who led 900 people to commit ritualistic suicide. Does that speak to the insipid tone of liberal political speech?

The entire conversation that aims to place the responsibility of an irresponsible psychopath on anyone besides the perpetrator is silly. Surely, violent conspiracies and ideologies exist: Muslim extremists, racial supremacy groups, anarchists and others openly embrace violence. Accusing political opponents of unintentionally aiding in a murder is silliness. Particularly in this case, it is shameful and disgusting.

Article Sources:
[1] http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf
[2] http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/jared-lee-loughners-worldview-a-conspiracy-theory-laundry-list/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11herbert.html
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/opinion/04herbert.html
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/ed-schultz-calls-republic_n_805142.html
[6] http://fliiby.com/file/311382/l3i3vm0i5n.html
[7] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304304,00.html
[8] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/ns/meet_the_press/
[9] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44476.html
[10] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/ap_on_el_pr/us_obama

Photo Sources: "Jared Lee Loughner" from http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01800/shooter_1800694b.jpg; "Ed Schultz" from http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ed-schultz-MSNBC.jpg; "President Barack Obama" from http://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/081104_obama_angry_hands.jpg; "Seung Hui Cho" from http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Seung-Hui-Cho.jpg

"New Years' Resolutions for the 112th Congress"

2011-01-03T00:58:00.003-05:00

“New Years’ Resolutions for the 112th Congress”
Or
“Avoiding Delusions of Grandeur, Party Sticks and Odious ODS”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

The lame duck session of the 111th Congress saw more activity than many Americans expected or desired. The New START treaty was ratified[1], $4.2 billion dollars was appropriated for the James Zadroga bill[2], the biggest overhaul to federal food safety laws since the 1930s was approved[3] and the dismantling of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was hastily achieved[4]. Contrasting the criticism of indolence President Barack Obama fielded prior to signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), his detractors must acknowledge the grandness of his legislative successes halfway through his first term. Where Obama’s agenda failed is an even bigger success story for the few Congressional Republicans in the 111th Congress. With the help of conservative commentators, conservative citizens and an aggressive liberal president, this small band sowed the seeds of the incoming 112th Congress—stacked with eager Republican legislators ready to right the sails and prepare a place for a new Republican executive. To continue progressing in that direction, the 112th Congress would be smart to adopt some helpful resolutions.

Resolution #1: Do Not Succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)

Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) infected the political left for 10 years making liberals appear irrational, scary and unstable. President George W. Bush was blamed for every ill that befell society and ultimately had his mostly stellar economic record distorted and slandered after the 2008 stock market crash. BDS harmed political pragmatism and ODS threatens to do the same.

The 1994 Republican Congress learned after viciously pursuing President Bill Clinton’s impeachment that the efforts to disgrace him made them appear small and made Clinton more popular. Today’s Republicans should avoid attacking President Obama personally and allowing him to use his personal appeal for political gain. This means that Birthers, inasmuch as they exist in Republican leadership, must be stamped out. Referring to the President as a socialist, a racist or as carrying out the will of his dead Luo Tribesman father should be dispatched. No more outbursts ala Joe Wilson—even if the substance of the outburst is true.

Let us not descend into pettiness over vacations the way that liberals did with George W. Bush. It is not true that Obama spent more time on vacation in his first year than did President Bush.[5] Even more importantly, it does not matter. The president (and his wife) is entitled to get away every once in a while. Besides, even while on vacation the President is working.

Republicans should view their role as that of parents of a teenage daughter who has started dating the guy from the other side of the tracks. Finger wagging, Pharisaic lecturing and caviling will drive her fast into his arms. Likewise, the electorate will see silly attacks on Obama as partisan meanness and rally around him.

Tone matters.

Resolution #2: Remember the Tea Party

Conservatives’ biggest fear leading up to the 2010 Midterm elections was that newly empowered Republicans would in short order forget who put them into power. The Tea Party movement withstood relentless insipid attacks for the sake of its principles—principles that its electoral favorites promised to represent. Already though, before the 112th Congress has been seated, Tea Party leaders are miffed that none of its more than 40 supported candidates were chosen for leadership positions.[6] In addition to that sleight, many Tea Party activists are disappointed that Senate Republicans in the lame duck session ratified the New START Treaty instead of heeding the call of a letter that Tea Party supported Senators sent to the Senate Republicans asking them to hold off on ratification until the 112th Congress was seated. Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots expressed his dissatisfaction with the Republicans of the 111th Congress’ compromising saying that they “frankly, have been a disaster. They stood strong on some things, but the only reason they stood strong is because we stood behind them with a big stick.”

Remember the Tea Party…and their stick.

Resolution #3: Be Realistic

One of the biggest reasons that liberals have abandoned Obama is because they built up their expectations so high that he could never have met their demands. In their defense, Obama welcomed the messianic treatment. Likewise, Republicans must remember that they only control one house of Congress which amounts to only 1/4th of the federal government.

In practice, this means that conservatives cannot despair when compromises need to be made, or when the government is not stripped of all excesses by 2012. Obamacare must be investigated and dismantled, but this will take time. The federal government must stop growing before it is finally pruned.

Utah senator-elect, Mike Lee, was a Tea Party favorite who echoes this point. “This changes by degrees,” he says. “As long as you have a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled Senate, I don’t think there are many people who are expecting that the government’s going to be transformed overnight into something in the image of the Tea Party. That would be delusional.”

Delusional indeed.

Another way to avoid delusions is to avoid crazy ideas. Leading up to the 2010 election, liberals tried to make hay of the handful of Republicans who talked about making multiple amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Such talk is premature at best and irrelevant at worst. Changing birthright citizenship, eliminating the Federal Reserve and other such ideas distract lawmakers from their most important task—fixing the American economy. Ignoring that mandate would make Republicans no better than the Democrats they are replacing.

It is important to remember that politics is about more than winning elections—it is about enacting a shared vision of governance. If, however, the incoming Republicans fail to avoid the aforementioned pitfalls, they will neither win elections nor positively affect the country.

Article Sources:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104371.html
[2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/12/22/2010-12-22_senators_reach_deal_to_approve_james_zadroga_911_health_bill.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112903881.html
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122201888.html
[5] http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/us/politics/02teaparty.html

Photo Sources:

"Pelosi and Boehner" from http://skipmaclure.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jan6-2009.jpg; "Obamas on vacation" from http://armchairhawaii.com/Attractions/obama/kailuabeach3.jpg; "Tea Party Protesters" from http://mydailyclarity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Tea-Party-sign.jpg; "14th Amendment Cartoon" from http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cartoon-8-15-gocomics-chip-bok-8-14-abort-14th-amendment.gif

Merry Christmas

2010-12-25T21:55:00.001-05:00