0 comment Monday, November 17, 2014 | admin
Did you watch the '100 Days' press conference? Neither did I, though I've looked at the transcript just to see what was said. But the following question and the ambiguous answer given has me puzzled. At one point, #44 says that waterboarding was torture, and that it 'violates our ideals and values' but then he says he is convinced it was the right thing to do. However I don't expect logic or consistency from him or his administration; it looks like he is trying to have it both ways, predictably:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding in your opinion is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
MR. OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways -- in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "we don't torture," when the -- the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And -- and -- and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.''
I have not blogged about this waterboarding/torture issue, because it is rather a thorny subject with which I haven't concerned myself very much. On the one hand, I find little sympathy for terror suspects but on the other hand, I cannot and could not bring myself to share the Rush Limbaugh attitude that, say, the incidents at Abu Ghraib were 'no worse than a fraternity hazing', just no big deal. I remember when that scandal first broke I was still somewhat of a mainstream conservative in many respects, but broke ranks with the dittoheads on the subject of the War on Terror or the Iraq War specifically.
So is waterboarding 'torture'? I don't know. I don't have a clear-cut answer. I do see a danger of simply reacting, as most Republicans do, in knee-jerk fashion to the rantings of the left. In other words, if the Democrats are agin' something, we have to be for it, and not only for it, but rabidly so. If they think waterboarding is torture, we have to say it's not only not torture, but in fact a good and virtuous thing. I reject knee-jerk politics or partisanship.
Overall, though, this issue is not high up on my list of priorities. But here is an interesting discussion from What's Wrong With the World, where Lydia writes about the changing views among conservatives on the ethics of 'torture' and capital punishment.
The End of a Consensus
This post is going to be full of sociological claims about which I am uncertain. It's okay if you disagree with me about them, so long as you do so nicely.
First claim: Thirty-five years ago, most conservatives were both very strongly in favor of the death penalty and strongly opposed to torture, where "torture" would have included waterboarding, if they had been asked about it.
Second claim: This is no longer true today. Now, conservatives who are strongly in favor of the death penalty tend to be the same ones who support at least some forms of torture, and conservatives who are opposed to those same forms of torture tend to be, at least, uneasy about the death penalty rather than strongly in favor of it.
Suppose these are both true. What caused the change?'
There is a paradox here. I would say she is right that a generation or so ago, most conservatives were pro-capital punishment yet they would not have approved of torture, or of some of the 'interrogation methods' that are apparently being used in recent years. She asks why views have shifted among conservatives. It does appear that more conservatives now have misgivings about the death penalty, but there is also a much more cavalier attitude about 'torture' in interrogation. I found the approval of torture by many conservatives to be surprising when it first became apparent a few years ago. I wondered at the time why this was so; I always, even when I was liberal, had a picture of conservatives as being more gentlemanly and civilized than many liberals. I suppose the generation of 'conservatives' who were dittoheads or listeners to talk radio generally tended to be less genteel than the old-time conservatives.
This isn't your father's conservatism.
But why has there been a change, as Lydia asks?
Further down, she says:
There is something to my mind bracing and healthy about a person who recognizes, sternly, uncompromisingly, and forcefully, the importance of the death penalty, who takes a manly position also on self-defense, who is nowhere close to pacifism, but who views torture with unmitigated disgust and rejection. Can anyone imagine John Wayne torturing anyone? But I can certainly imagine him solemnly sentencing a murderer to death. And what about the Marine hymn? "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean."
Regardless of what John Wayne would have countenanced, or more accurately, what his movie characters would have done, would, say, Robert E. Lee have approved of torturing anyone? Stonewall Jackson? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Yet all of these men would, as Lydia says of Wayne, would have no objection to the death penalty where appropriate.
We live in a strange and inconsistent age; some of the same people on the right who support the death penalty for certain criminals are too squeamish to send illegal invaders home, or to close our borders, because that would be cruel and inhumane.
As far as the death penalty, this subject has come up here before. I notice something strange about the comments on Lydia's post at WWWtW: almost no one references or cites the Bible on the subject of the death penalty. Someone quotes G.K. Chesterton as an authority; I admire Chesterton as much as the next, and a quote of his adorns my sidebar. But he is not my authority on ethics and morals. Another commenter references C.S. Lewis; I would say the same of him that I say about Chesterton. But shouldn't a Christian look to the Bible to know God's will on that subject? Surely the absence of Biblical references is surprising on a site which espouses a Christian worldview -- or perhaps more accurately a Catholic viewpoint.
I think the question of the Church's teachings on capital punishment is an interesting topic which should be explored, although I won't attempt that here, as I am not a Catholic and I don't feel qualified to explore that. It's a subject for those who are Catholic or who are more knowledgeable about Catholic theology or doctrine than I. I do know, simply, that the Catholic Church used to favor capital punishment for certain crimes like murder, though I don't know how or why that position was reversed.
Even less do I know why Protestants, in some cases, are abandoning Biblical teaching on the death penalty. I was talking about capital punishment with a very conservatively-brought-up Christian recently, when we were discussing various crimes. This person told me that she was not sure about capital punishment because the Bible says ''vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.'' I attempted to point out that this is in reference to personal matters, admonishing us not to take revenge on someone who has wronged us, just as with the 'turn the other cheek' admonition. But I fear it fell on deaf ears. She thinks capital punishment is revenge, and that it is a failure to show mercy and forgiveness. Again, I tried to point out that God is not only merciful but just and holy, not tolerating sin. She was unconvinced. And I know there are many more like her, who are now becoming more liberal and vacillating on issues like punishment in general. Many have been persuaded by years of exposure to the Oprah approach, and the emphasis on mental illness as the cause of crime, not human sin or evil. Punishment, according to that worldview, is backward; an enlightened society 'understands' and 'rehabilitates' its 'sick people'; it does not punish criminals. That is so 'medieval.'
Someone on the WWWtW thread opines that the tendency to favor harsh interrogation methods for terror suspects is driven by the tribal defense instinct; we feel under threat so we are willing to justify harsh measures to protect our own in wartime or other such extraordinary situations. I think that makes sense; perhaps it's why I am not inclined to feel sympathy for terror suspects or actual terrorists. I don't believe that the Islamic threat is a bogeyman created by the neocons or the media. On the other hand, neither do I see Islam as the primary threat, so I don't fit in with the mainstream right on this issue.
As for the capital punishment question, I think it will assume more importance as the ascendant far left tries its best to abolish capital punishment. They have been relentlessly working towards that goal for decades and they are sensing victory, so they will ratchet up their efforts to end it. And what with the liberalizing of many formerly conservative churches and denominations, I fear Christians will lose the will to defend the death penalty, and concede the moral battle to the left, probably feeling good about themselves as they do so. It's all part of the same phenomenon which causes the Christian 'conservatives' to reverse themselves on homosexuality, same-sex ''marriage'' or other such social issues. What's next?
Addendum
Here are some good defenses, from a Biblical point of view, of capital punishment. They do a very thorough job of examining many possible objections or questions from skeptics on the issue:
Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
by Gregory Koukl
The Bible and Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment and the Bible
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding in your opinion is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
MR. OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways -- in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "we don't torture," when the -- the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And -- and -- and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.''
I have not blogged about this waterboarding/torture issue, because it is rather a thorny subject with which I haven't concerned myself very much. On the one hand, I find little sympathy for terror suspects but on the other hand, I cannot and could not bring myself to share the Rush Limbaugh attitude that, say, the incidents at Abu Ghraib were 'no worse than a fraternity hazing', just no big deal. I remember when that scandal first broke I was still somewhat of a mainstream conservative in many respects, but broke ranks with the dittoheads on the subject of the War on Terror or the Iraq War specifically.
So is waterboarding 'torture'? I don't know. I don't have a clear-cut answer. I do see a danger of simply reacting, as most Republicans do, in knee-jerk fashion to the rantings of the left. In other words, if the Democrats are agin' something, we have to be for it, and not only for it, but rabidly so. If they think waterboarding is torture, we have to say it's not only not torture, but in fact a good and virtuous thing. I reject knee-jerk politics or partisanship.
Overall, though, this issue is not high up on my list of priorities. But here is an interesting discussion from What's Wrong With the World, where Lydia writes about the changing views among conservatives on the ethics of 'torture' and capital punishment.
The End of a Consensus
This post is going to be full of sociological claims about which I am uncertain. It's okay if you disagree with me about them, so long as you do so nicely.
First claim: Thirty-five years ago, most conservatives were both very strongly in favor of the death penalty and strongly opposed to torture, where "torture" would have included waterboarding, if they had been asked about it.
Second claim: This is no longer true today. Now, conservatives who are strongly in favor of the death penalty tend to be the same ones who support at least some forms of torture, and conservatives who are opposed to those same forms of torture tend to be, at least, uneasy about the death penalty rather than strongly in favor of it.
Suppose these are both true. What caused the change?'
There is a paradox here. I would say she is right that a generation or so ago, most conservatives were pro-capital punishment yet they would not have approved of torture, or of some of the 'interrogation methods' that are apparently being used in recent years. She asks why views have shifted among conservatives. It does appear that more conservatives now have misgivings about the death penalty, but there is also a much more cavalier attitude about 'torture' in interrogation. I found the approval of torture by many conservatives to be surprising when it first became apparent a few years ago. I wondered at the time why this was so; I always, even when I was liberal, had a picture of conservatives as being more gentlemanly and civilized than many liberals. I suppose the generation of 'conservatives' who were dittoheads or listeners to talk radio generally tended to be less genteel than the old-time conservatives.
This isn't your father's conservatism.
But why has there been a change, as Lydia asks?
Further down, she says:
There is something to my mind bracing and healthy about a person who recognizes, sternly, uncompromisingly, and forcefully, the importance of the death penalty, who takes a manly position also on self-defense, who is nowhere close to pacifism, but who views torture with unmitigated disgust and rejection. Can anyone imagine John Wayne torturing anyone? But I can certainly imagine him solemnly sentencing a murderer to death. And what about the Marine hymn? "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean."
Regardless of what John Wayne would have countenanced, or more accurately, what his movie characters would have done, would, say, Robert E. Lee have approved of torturing anyone? Stonewall Jackson? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Yet all of these men would, as Lydia says of Wayne, would have no objection to the death penalty where appropriate.
We live in a strange and inconsistent age; some of the same people on the right who support the death penalty for certain criminals are too squeamish to send illegal invaders home, or to close our borders, because that would be cruel and inhumane.
As far as the death penalty, this subject has come up here before. I notice something strange about the comments on Lydia's post at WWWtW: almost no one references or cites the Bible on the subject of the death penalty. Someone quotes G.K. Chesterton as an authority; I admire Chesterton as much as the next, and a quote of his adorns my sidebar. But he is not my authority on ethics and morals. Another commenter references C.S. Lewis; I would say the same of him that I say about Chesterton. But shouldn't a Christian look to the Bible to know God's will on that subject? Surely the absence of Biblical references is surprising on a site which espouses a Christian worldview -- or perhaps more accurately a Catholic viewpoint.
I think the question of the Church's teachings on capital punishment is an interesting topic which should be explored, although I won't attempt that here, as I am not a Catholic and I don't feel qualified to explore that. It's a subject for those who are Catholic or who are more knowledgeable about Catholic theology or doctrine than I. I do know, simply, that the Catholic Church used to favor capital punishment for certain crimes like murder, though I don't know how or why that position was reversed.
Even less do I know why Protestants, in some cases, are abandoning Biblical teaching on the death penalty. I was talking about capital punishment with a very conservatively-brought-up Christian recently, when we were discussing various crimes. This person told me that she was not sure about capital punishment because the Bible says ''vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.'' I attempted to point out that this is in reference to personal matters, admonishing us not to take revenge on someone who has wronged us, just as with the 'turn the other cheek' admonition. But I fear it fell on deaf ears. She thinks capital punishment is revenge, and that it is a failure to show mercy and forgiveness. Again, I tried to point out that God is not only merciful but just and holy, not tolerating sin. She was unconvinced. And I know there are many more like her, who are now becoming more liberal and vacillating on issues like punishment in general. Many have been persuaded by years of exposure to the Oprah approach, and the emphasis on mental illness as the cause of crime, not human sin or evil. Punishment, according to that worldview, is backward; an enlightened society 'understands' and 'rehabilitates' its 'sick people'; it does not punish criminals. That is so 'medieval.'
Someone on the WWWtW thread opines that the tendency to favor harsh interrogation methods for terror suspects is driven by the tribal defense instinct; we feel under threat so we are willing to justify harsh measures to protect our own in wartime or other such extraordinary situations. I think that makes sense; perhaps it's why I am not inclined to feel sympathy for terror suspects or actual terrorists. I don't believe that the Islamic threat is a bogeyman created by the neocons or the media. On the other hand, neither do I see Islam as the primary threat, so I don't fit in with the mainstream right on this issue.
As for the capital punishment question, I think it will assume more importance as the ascendant far left tries its best to abolish capital punishment. They have been relentlessly working towards that goal for decades and they are sensing victory, so they will ratchet up their efforts to end it. And what with the liberalizing of many formerly conservative churches and denominations, I fear Christians will lose the will to defend the death penalty, and concede the moral battle to the left, probably feeling good about themselves as they do so. It's all part of the same phenomenon which causes the Christian 'conservatives' to reverse themselves on homosexuality, same-sex ''marriage'' or other such social issues. What's next?
Addendum
Here are some good defenses, from a Biblical point of view, of capital punishment. They do a very thorough job of examining many possible objections or questions from skeptics on the issue:
Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
by Gregory Koukl
The Bible and Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment and the Bible
Labels: Capital Punishment, Conservatism, Creeping Liberalism, Crime, Death Penalty, Justice System, Liberal Christianity, Traditional Morality
0 comment Sunday, November 16, 2014 | admin
From The Hill:
Tancredo slams Katrina spending
GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) said Friday it is "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.
"The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called 'recovery� efforts has been mind-boggling," said Tancredo, who is running a long-shot presidential campaign. "Enough is enough."
Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.
"At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative," said Tancredo. "The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end."
I agree with him on the Katrina gravy train. Two years after Katrina, I am still stunned to read about people who are still drawing some kind of federal assistance money, such as living rent-free, thanks to taxpayers' money, and still complaining whenever the government tries to end their handouts. Two years is more than enough time for people to put their lives back together, and I agree with Tancredo that the taxpayer should not be seen as the perpetual sugar daddy.
Personally I am convinced that, if allowed, the professional 'Katrina victims' want to make their handouts permanent entitlements, that will continue for generations. After all, if we make excuses for people because their ancestors several generations back were slaves, why not offer that same advantage to descendants of Katrina victims?
But kudos to Tom Tancredo. He is hitting all the right notes, speaking truths that the other candidates avoid.
Even if Tancredo is a 'long shot candidate' as the old media never tire of telling us, his candidacy is a way to get a conservative message out there, because the 'leading' candidates are too timid or too subservient to stray outside the PC boundaries. We have become so unaccustomed to hearing a politician speak truth that we are shocked by what should be an everyday event.
I do hope that Tancredo, as a result of this candidacy, will gain in visibility and in influence, politically; there are far too few conservatives in national positions, and even fewer who have the kind of commitment to the pro-border enforcement cause that Tancredo has.
Tancredo slams Katrina spending
GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) said Friday it is "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.
"The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called 'recovery� efforts has been mind-boggling," said Tancredo, who is running a long-shot presidential campaign. "Enough is enough."
Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.
"At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative," said Tancredo. "The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end."
I agree with him on the Katrina gravy train. Two years after Katrina, I am still stunned to read about people who are still drawing some kind of federal assistance money, such as living rent-free, thanks to taxpayers' money, and still complaining whenever the government tries to end their handouts. Two years is more than enough time for people to put their lives back together, and I agree with Tancredo that the taxpayer should not be seen as the perpetual sugar daddy.
Personally I am convinced that, if allowed, the professional 'Katrina victims' want to make their handouts permanent entitlements, that will continue for generations. After all, if we make excuses for people because their ancestors several generations back were slaves, why not offer that same advantage to descendants of Katrina victims?
But kudos to Tom Tancredo. He is hitting all the right notes, speaking truths that the other candidates avoid.
Even if Tancredo is a 'long shot candidate' as the old media never tire of telling us, his candidacy is a way to get a conservative message out there, because the 'leading' candidates are too timid or too subservient to stray outside the PC boundaries. We have become so unaccustomed to hearing a politician speak truth that we are shocked by what should be an everyday event.
I do hope that Tancredo, as a result of this candidacy, will gain in visibility and in influence, politically; there are far too few conservatives in national positions, and even fewer who have the kind of commitment to the pro-border enforcement cause that Tancredo has.
Labels: Conservatism, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Saturday, November 8, 2014 | admin
'Good' is Not a Bad Word
by Chuck Colson - Breakpoint
Eight years ago, a young writer named Wendy Shalit took the culture by storm with a radical book called A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. While many people embraced the idea of a return to modesty�especially the young women whose struggles and aspirations Shalit wrote about�others were appalled. "I knew that my arguments . . . might be challenged," Shalit recalls now, "but nothing prepared me for the tongue-lashings I would receive from my elders. . . . [Feminist writer] Katha Pollitt called me a 'twit.� . . . The Nation solemnly foretold that I would 'certainly be embarrassed� and regret my stance 'in a few years.�"
Well, it�s now been a few years, and Wendy regrets nothing. On the contrary, she has a new book out, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It�s Not Bad to Be Good. As the title proclaims, Shalit is still convinced that true strength and happiness come not from deadening one�s emotions and having sex for fun, but from practicing modesty and self-restraint.
And guess who�s on her side?
As Shalit recounts, "To find out why modesty is more appealing to younger people, [feminist writer Katha] Pollitt might have talked to her own daughter, Sophie, who . . . was disgusted by contemporary sexual norms."
Colson's article then goes on to tell how some feminists' daughters, like the daughter of feminist writer Erica Jong, agree with Miss Shalit's point of view. It's obvious that the feminist ideology has not been a great success in achieving a better society in which women are 'freer' and safer and more 'autonomous', but instead, too often, young women feel more vulnerable and more distressed by the shabby state of male-female relationships, in which heartless, soulless 'hook-ups' often substitute for romance or loving companionship.
Shalit in her original book also made the point, a valid one, that many 'conservatives' who ought to have been on her side tended to dismiss some of her concerns as being feminist 'whining' and complaining. If she said that young women felt vulnerable or treated as objects, this was decried by many 'conservatives' as feminist victim rhetoric.
She said:
First, I want to invite conservatives to take the claims of the feminists seriously. That is, all of their claims, from the date-rape figures to anorexia to the shyness of teenage girls, even the number of women who say they feel 'objectified� by the male gaze. I want them to stop saying that this or that study was flawed; or that young women are exaggerating; or that it has been proven that at this or that university such-and-such a charge was made up. Because ultimately, it seems to me, it doesn�t really matter if one study is flawed or if one charge is false. When it comes down to it, the same vague yet unmistakable problem is still with us."
I think conservatives probably went too far in deriding some of the claims of young women about date-rape, for example, simply as an unthinking knee-jerk reaction against feminism. If feminists claimed that date rape occurred at a certain rate, then the 'conservatives' immediately rejected the claims as feminist propaganda, and tended to deny that rape was as common as feminists said -- just because feminists said it. Surely there is a better and more honest way: examine statistics, and pay attention to real-life anecdotes. We can't rely on anecdotes alone, but when you see patterns, those patterns are telling. I have heard stories from women and girls whose honesty is not in doubt; conservatives have been too quick to downplay and deny that women's rape claims are true.
I agree that false rape claims do happen; I believe that women sometimes do make false claims for vindictive reasons or for other reasons: to escape consequences for some bad judgment on their part, or to get attention and sympathy. But to acknowledge that false rape accusations are made (as with the Duke Lacrosse players) should not mean that we declare all rape claims to be lies or feminist whining.
A while back, when basketball player Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, I was staggered by the number of 'conservatives' who were quick to condemn the accuser as a liar and a 'gold-digger' or attention-seeker. I could not and cannot see how her claims would enrich her or bring her fame; instead, she was exposing herself to being called a liar and worse.
I think in an overreaction to feminist claims about rape, both 'date-rape' and forcible stranger rape, many 'conservatives' have dropped the traditional chivalrous protection of women and have been too quick to disbelieve women who have in fact been victims of rape or other sexual crimes.
Another recent case in which people, both men and women, have been quick to condemn a young woman was the Natalee Holloway case, in which the missing young woman was condemned as a slut, a whore, and worse, for having apparently left a club with a young man she just met. Yes, if that's the way it happened (and we have only the suspects' word for it) she certainly showed poor judgment, but did she deserve rape and/or death as a punishment?
I think conservatives have been too quick to adopt the harsh tone of lesbian libertarian writer Camille Paglia, who tends to blame young women for their poor choices. Paglia somehow has been established as a 'conservative' when she is simply anti-liberal (and often anti-traditional, hence anti-conservative). And she is a feminist, for Pete's sake, yet she has many ardent 'conservative' admirers. Conservatives are all too often easily pleased; anybody who insults liberals is taken to the hearts of these 'conservatives' as being on our side. Paglia is not on the side of traditional values, in any way. In her own words:
I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs.''
Some 'conservative'. Some advocate of women.
More from the same piece
Like when this huge, nasty expose I wrote for Arion at Boston University came out, and the San Francisco Examiner magazine made it its cover story this summer. They asked me, by the way, "Would you pose as Madonna for our pages?" And I said, "No, but I'll do something just as good." So I posed in a purple miniskirt with a whip and chains in front of a porn store. I thought for San Francisco I should do that--make an extra effort!
So at any rate I got these wonderful moving letters from San Francisco and from the Bay Area--people who said that they were weeping, crying as they read my piece. They said that "for twenty years I've seen our Sixties ideals seem to be betrayed--I felt lost and uncentered--and when I read your piece I remember again the fire that we felt in the Sixties, I remember again what we were working for in the Sixties." Okay, so this is what I'm doing. I'm trying to bring back out of the woodwork all these Sixties people. Come out, come out, wherever you are!''
Paglia occasionally says a true thing, but she is no conservative, and should not be a darling of unthinking conservatives just because she insults their enemies occasionally. I see the same phenomenon with figures like Christopher Hitchins and Andrew Sullivan, neither of them conservative, yet they are still fawned over by conservatives because they aim barbs at favorite targets of many on the right, and they do so with verbal skill or eloquence. Yet they should not be mistaken for conservatives.
So Paglia is right to an extent; she is right that feminism has tended to infantilize women, a point which I have made myself on occasion. We might expect liberal feminists to adopt an infantilized victim image of women, but when conservative women embrace that image of women and defend women who ought not to be defended, on the basis of their helplessness, this is distressing. Women are not helpless and are not exempt from responsibility.
Infantilizing women, and inculcating them with the idea of their helplessness and lack of accountability is not the traditional way; women may have been 'second-class citizens' by our modern liberal standards in the old days, but they were brought up to believe that they were responsible for the choices they made, and they were taught that they had better choose rightly or there would be consequences. Hence young women, in the unenlightened pre-feminist days, were taught that public drunkenness, or even private drunkenness, was a bad and immoral choice, and that it left them very vulnerable to any number of possible fates, none of them good. Rape or worse would be a potential fate of a young woman who got falling-down drunk, or allowed herself to be alone with a strange male. Young women understood that, and behaved accordingly, and those who did not, were at the very least, likely to have their reputation diminished, and to find themselves gossiped about and sometimes shunned. Was this cruel? Maybe; but it brought many a young woman back in line, or deterred her from getting out of line in the first place. Better to be shunned or chastised and to avoid the wrong path than to become a drunk and a promiscuous slattern. And nowadays, drunkenness and sluttish behaviors are the norm for many young women, not the exception.
So was Natalee Holloway to blame, as many conservatives assert, for whatever sad fate overtook her? In some sense, maybe, but does her irresponsibility absolve the guilt of whoever abducted and/or killed her? Hardly.
The young woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape seems to have been less to blame, considering that her job brought her into contact with Bryant, and she may have been alone with him in the context of her job. So was she irresponsible? Most of us can't decide that because we don't know the facts. She may have been star-struck; some young people rashly believe that celebrities are not capable of criminal behavior.
But these young women are all in a sense victims, although I hate to use that odiously overused word, of our current society's libertine norms. In a world in which many young people have a careless and callous attitude towards sex, regarding it as a mere animal act, it's not surprising that 'hook-ups' are the norm and promiscuity no longer scandalous. And in such a degraded atmosphere, there will be more sexual advantage taken: drunk young women are vulnerable. And the dropping of social censure for drunkenness is a contributing factor. It used to be that drunkenness, or alcohol use in general, was considered 'unladylike'. Nice girls did not get drunk. But with the triumph of feminism, with women vying to outdo males in excesses like social drinking and promiscuity, being 'ladylike' was declared to be oppressive for women. It was male chauvinism that invented the image of the 'lady', so the feminists said, so the ladylike ideal must go. The word 'lady' became a fighting word, a grave insult, for feminists. Women must never be called 'girls' or 'gals' or 'chicks', and worst of all was the word 'lady'. because the 'lady' was a prisoner of the patriarchy, with censorious males telling her not to do this and not to do that; her freedom demanded the discarding of all rules of ladylike behavior. Women were thus encouraged to curse and swear like sailors, drink heavily like men, go everywhere unescorted, including into bars (remember ladies could not enter some bars unescorted in the old days). Women suddenly adopted a number of other risky behaviors like hitchhiking alone, often with bad consequences. And the feminists refused to see that their reckless casting off of old taboos and social roles made women immensely more vulnerable to the predators who unquestionably exist out there.
Feminists did women no favors, though they claimed to be 'liberating' women.
But Wendy Shalit is right; conservatives have overreacted against feminists and have thus turned against women in a sense.
Feminists may have exaggerated the victimization of women, and diminished their responsibility for the misfortunes that followed feminist 'liberation', but the fact is, women ARE vulnerable, if only by virtue of the fact that women are not the physical equals of men. And the 'conservative' women who believe the feminist nonsense about women being the equals of men in the military and in police work are as much fools as the liberal feminists on this score. Women, aside from the occasional -type, are simply not a match for men in size and strength. Women and girls are more at risk out there in a world with too many predators and deviants, Paglia and her ilk notwithstanding. Shalit tried to make that point: women are vulnerable, and we have to re-instill in our girls the need for greater vigilance and 'ladylike behavior' so as to minimize the risks. Yes, we can teach our girls to defend themselves as best they can, but to teach them that a few martial arts lessons will make them invulnerable while walking the streets at 2 A.M. is to delude them. And yes they should be taught to use firearms, but we should also teach them that it's still better to live a life which does not expose them to needless risks, and that the old-fashioned ways and norms were much healthier and safer for women than this egalitarian jungle in which foolish and reckless and misguided young women are exposed to dangers their grandmothers would never have imagined.
We do need a return to modesty and to some kind of sanity regarding sexuality and the balance between the sexes. Clearly the 'new' ways pushed on us by the left since the 1960s are not working; they are destroying the very basis of our society.
by Chuck Colson - Breakpoint
Eight years ago, a young writer named Wendy Shalit took the culture by storm with a radical book called A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. While many people embraced the idea of a return to modesty�especially the young women whose struggles and aspirations Shalit wrote about�others were appalled. "I knew that my arguments . . . might be challenged," Shalit recalls now, "but nothing prepared me for the tongue-lashings I would receive from my elders. . . . [Feminist writer] Katha Pollitt called me a 'twit.� . . . The Nation solemnly foretold that I would 'certainly be embarrassed� and regret my stance 'in a few years.�"
Well, it�s now been a few years, and Wendy regrets nothing. On the contrary, she has a new book out, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It�s Not Bad to Be Good. As the title proclaims, Shalit is still convinced that true strength and happiness come not from deadening one�s emotions and having sex for fun, but from practicing modesty and self-restraint.
And guess who�s on her side?
As Shalit recounts, "To find out why modesty is more appealing to younger people, [feminist writer Katha] Pollitt might have talked to her own daughter, Sophie, who . . . was disgusted by contemporary sexual norms."
Colson's article then goes on to tell how some feminists' daughters, like the daughter of feminist writer Erica Jong, agree with Miss Shalit's point of view. It's obvious that the feminist ideology has not been a great success in achieving a better society in which women are 'freer' and safer and more 'autonomous', but instead, too often, young women feel more vulnerable and more distressed by the shabby state of male-female relationships, in which heartless, soulless 'hook-ups' often substitute for romance or loving companionship.
Shalit in her original book also made the point, a valid one, that many 'conservatives' who ought to have been on her side tended to dismiss some of her concerns as being feminist 'whining' and complaining. If she said that young women felt vulnerable or treated as objects, this was decried by many 'conservatives' as feminist victim rhetoric.
She said:
First, I want to invite conservatives to take the claims of the feminists seriously. That is, all of their claims, from the date-rape figures to anorexia to the shyness of teenage girls, even the number of women who say they feel 'objectified� by the male gaze. I want them to stop saying that this or that study was flawed; or that young women are exaggerating; or that it has been proven that at this or that university such-and-such a charge was made up. Because ultimately, it seems to me, it doesn�t really matter if one study is flawed or if one charge is false. When it comes down to it, the same vague yet unmistakable problem is still with us."
I think conservatives probably went too far in deriding some of the claims of young women about date-rape, for example, simply as an unthinking knee-jerk reaction against feminism. If feminists claimed that date rape occurred at a certain rate, then the 'conservatives' immediately rejected the claims as feminist propaganda, and tended to deny that rape was as common as feminists said -- just because feminists said it. Surely there is a better and more honest way: examine statistics, and pay attention to real-life anecdotes. We can't rely on anecdotes alone, but when you see patterns, those patterns are telling. I have heard stories from women and girls whose honesty is not in doubt; conservatives have been too quick to downplay and deny that women's rape claims are true.
I agree that false rape claims do happen; I believe that women sometimes do make false claims for vindictive reasons or for other reasons: to escape consequences for some bad judgment on their part, or to get attention and sympathy. But to acknowledge that false rape accusations are made (as with the Duke Lacrosse players) should not mean that we declare all rape claims to be lies or feminist whining.
A while back, when basketball player Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, I was staggered by the number of 'conservatives' who were quick to condemn the accuser as a liar and a 'gold-digger' or attention-seeker. I could not and cannot see how her claims would enrich her or bring her fame; instead, she was exposing herself to being called a liar and worse.
I think in an overreaction to feminist claims about rape, both 'date-rape' and forcible stranger rape, many 'conservatives' have dropped the traditional chivalrous protection of women and have been too quick to disbelieve women who have in fact been victims of rape or other sexual crimes.
Another recent case in which people, both men and women, have been quick to condemn a young woman was the Natalee Holloway case, in which the missing young woman was condemned as a slut, a whore, and worse, for having apparently left a club with a young man she just met. Yes, if that's the way it happened (and we have only the suspects' word for it) she certainly showed poor judgment, but did she deserve rape and/or death as a punishment?
I think conservatives have been too quick to adopt the harsh tone of lesbian libertarian writer Camille Paglia, who tends to blame young women for their poor choices. Paglia somehow has been established as a 'conservative' when she is simply anti-liberal (and often anti-traditional, hence anti-conservative). And she is a feminist, for Pete's sake, yet she has many ardent 'conservative' admirers. Conservatives are all too often easily pleased; anybody who insults liberals is taken to the hearts of these 'conservatives' as being on our side. Paglia is not on the side of traditional values, in any way. In her own words:
I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs.''
Some 'conservative'. Some advocate of women.
More from the same piece
Like when this huge, nasty expose I wrote for Arion at Boston University came out, and the San Francisco Examiner magazine made it its cover story this summer. They asked me, by the way, "Would you pose as Madonna for our pages?" And I said, "No, but I'll do something just as good." So I posed in a purple miniskirt with a whip and chains in front of a porn store. I thought for San Francisco I should do that--make an extra effort!
So at any rate I got these wonderful moving letters from San Francisco and from the Bay Area--people who said that they were weeping, crying as they read my piece. They said that "for twenty years I've seen our Sixties ideals seem to be betrayed--I felt lost and uncentered--and when I read your piece I remember again the fire that we felt in the Sixties, I remember again what we were working for in the Sixties." Okay, so this is what I'm doing. I'm trying to bring back out of the woodwork all these Sixties people. Come out, come out, wherever you are!''
Paglia occasionally says a true thing, but she is no conservative, and should not be a darling of unthinking conservatives just because she insults their enemies occasionally. I see the same phenomenon with figures like Christopher Hitchins and Andrew Sullivan, neither of them conservative, yet they are still fawned over by conservatives because they aim barbs at favorite targets of many on the right, and they do so with verbal skill or eloquence. Yet they should not be mistaken for conservatives.
So Paglia is right to an extent; she is right that feminism has tended to infantilize women, a point which I have made myself on occasion. We might expect liberal feminists to adopt an infantilized victim image of women, but when conservative women embrace that image of women and defend women who ought not to be defended, on the basis of their helplessness, this is distressing. Women are not helpless and are not exempt from responsibility.
Infantilizing women, and inculcating them with the idea of their helplessness and lack of accountability is not the traditional way; women may have been 'second-class citizens' by our modern liberal standards in the old days, but they were brought up to believe that they were responsible for the choices they made, and they were taught that they had better choose rightly or there would be consequences. Hence young women, in the unenlightened pre-feminist days, were taught that public drunkenness, or even private drunkenness, was a bad and immoral choice, and that it left them very vulnerable to any number of possible fates, none of them good. Rape or worse would be a potential fate of a young woman who got falling-down drunk, or allowed herself to be alone with a strange male. Young women understood that, and behaved accordingly, and those who did not, were at the very least, likely to have their reputation diminished, and to find themselves gossiped about and sometimes shunned. Was this cruel? Maybe; but it brought many a young woman back in line, or deterred her from getting out of line in the first place. Better to be shunned or chastised and to avoid the wrong path than to become a drunk and a promiscuous slattern. And nowadays, drunkenness and sluttish behaviors are the norm for many young women, not the exception.
So was Natalee Holloway to blame, as many conservatives assert, for whatever sad fate overtook her? In some sense, maybe, but does her irresponsibility absolve the guilt of whoever abducted and/or killed her? Hardly.
The young woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape seems to have been less to blame, considering that her job brought her into contact with Bryant, and she may have been alone with him in the context of her job. So was she irresponsible? Most of us can't decide that because we don't know the facts. She may have been star-struck; some young people rashly believe that celebrities are not capable of criminal behavior.
But these young women are all in a sense victims, although I hate to use that odiously overused word, of our current society's libertine norms. In a world in which many young people have a careless and callous attitude towards sex, regarding it as a mere animal act, it's not surprising that 'hook-ups' are the norm and promiscuity no longer scandalous. And in such a degraded atmosphere, there will be more sexual advantage taken: drunk young women are vulnerable. And the dropping of social censure for drunkenness is a contributing factor. It used to be that drunkenness, or alcohol use in general, was considered 'unladylike'. Nice girls did not get drunk. But with the triumph of feminism, with women vying to outdo males in excesses like social drinking and promiscuity, being 'ladylike' was declared to be oppressive for women. It was male chauvinism that invented the image of the 'lady', so the feminists said, so the ladylike ideal must go. The word 'lady' became a fighting word, a grave insult, for feminists. Women must never be called 'girls' or 'gals' or 'chicks', and worst of all was the word 'lady'. because the 'lady' was a prisoner of the patriarchy, with censorious males telling her not to do this and not to do that; her freedom demanded the discarding of all rules of ladylike behavior. Women were thus encouraged to curse and swear like sailors, drink heavily like men, go everywhere unescorted, including into bars (remember ladies could not enter some bars unescorted in the old days). Women suddenly adopted a number of other risky behaviors like hitchhiking alone, often with bad consequences. And the feminists refused to see that their reckless casting off of old taboos and social roles made women immensely more vulnerable to the predators who unquestionably exist out there.
Feminists did women no favors, though they claimed to be 'liberating' women.
But Wendy Shalit is right; conservatives have overreacted against feminists and have thus turned against women in a sense.
Feminists may have exaggerated the victimization of women, and diminished their responsibility for the misfortunes that followed feminist 'liberation', but the fact is, women ARE vulnerable, if only by virtue of the fact that women are not the physical equals of men. And the 'conservative' women who believe the feminist nonsense about women being the equals of men in the military and in police work are as much fools as the liberal feminists on this score. Women, aside from the occasional -type, are simply not a match for men in size and strength. Women and girls are more at risk out there in a world with too many predators and deviants, Paglia and her ilk notwithstanding. Shalit tried to make that point: women are vulnerable, and we have to re-instill in our girls the need for greater vigilance and 'ladylike behavior' so as to minimize the risks. Yes, we can teach our girls to defend themselves as best they can, but to teach them that a few martial arts lessons will make them invulnerable while walking the streets at 2 A.M. is to delude them. And yes they should be taught to use firearms, but we should also teach them that it's still better to live a life which does not expose them to needless risks, and that the old-fashioned ways and norms were much healthier and safer for women than this egalitarian jungle in which foolish and reckless and misguided young women are exposed to dangers their grandmothers would never have imagined.
We do need a return to modesty and to some kind of sanity regarding sexuality and the balance between the sexes. Clearly the 'new' ways pushed on us by the left since the 1960s are not working; they are destroying the very basis of our society.
Labels: American Culture, Conservatism, Feminism, Societal Decay
0 comment Wednesday, November 5, 2014 | admin
Someone posted a link over on Free Republic, to a list of various types of conservatives. The three broad categories are Secular Right, Religious Right, and -- 'Xenophobic Right.' I don't quite appreciate their designation of that last category, for obvious reasons. They are putting a label which implies some kind of pathology on what is essentially a normal desire to live amongst one's own, and not to be dominated by nor surrounded by people of differing origins and ways.
A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.
The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?
Which category do you belong to, if any?
A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.
The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?
Which category do you belong to, if any?
Labels: Conservatism, Ethnoconservatism, Far Right, Nationalism, Nativism, Politics, The Right
0 comment Saturday, November 1, 2014 | admin
In my recent piece called 'In the Country of the Blind...', I wrote about the tendency of Americans to be followers: followers of fads, trends, and above all, followers of dubious individuals. This need to follow all too often seems to center on some individual who is apparently 'charismatic' in the eyes of his fans or disciples.
As I was writing that piece, Glenn Beck was foremost in my mind, although there are certainly many other figures who have gained wide popularity in this country based on perceived charisma with a little snake-oil in the recipe.
On an article at American Thinker, which tends to be favorable to the brand of 'conservatism' endorsed by Beck and Fox News, there were two comments by the same individual expressing a lonely skepticism toward Beck and the rally. The comments tied in very much with my message here. I will quote from those comments.
''But there are not a few people who become histrionic if Beck's motives are questioned. Why? Isn't he just a man like the rest of us? Or am I wrong, and he has become a god? The point at issue is (or should be) this: When it is considered an outrage to apply reasoned criticism to an American public figure (even one so revered, so adulated, so "funny," so "adorably pudgy," and so adamant that he is "on the side of the little guy--even though he wouldn't waste a micro-second of his off-air time on the average Joe Shmoe American, then we've got a problem. And the problem is this: we've put peronalities before principles.''
Personalities before principles. That parallels something I said in my earlier post on this subject. And the tendency to reject any criticism of the personalities we admire is not a good thing.
This is the stuff of which cults are made of. It is not worthy of thinking people.
And in a later comment on the same thread, the reader says
''We've become a nation of televidiots. We sit down on our sofas and watch the TV talking heads, like the dolts on MSNBC, an assortment of unspeakably rotten attention whores, BTW. We listen to "talk radio" maestros who daily inform us of their luxurious lifestyles--their golfing, their jets, the famous and "important" people they mixed with over the preceding weekend. In other words, we get our info--ALL our info--second hand. That's not good. Our nation was founded on the premise that there would be an informed citizenry that would inform ITSELF. It's about doing our own heavy lifting in the intellectual realm--our own reading, our own internet research, our own townhall discussion groups. Once we make a commitment to sojourn in that realm we'll have a different view of these Pied Pipers who are reaping exhorbitant wealth by opportunistically using the current onslaught of the Left (a very real onslaught against the very foundations of our Republic) to make gazillions of dollars from selling books, and from astronomical speaking-engagement fees (and don't forget the revenue from show advertisers). This sort of thing sullies the unsung efforts of those who are genuinely and selflessly working hard to stem the tide of the leftist assault--it makes the conservative movement look like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers. I have an uncanny feeling that the Left is actually not really that worried about Mr. Beck's impact on their agenda.''
[I have left the spelling in the quotes as it appeared on the original post.]
I can only agree with what this commenter says. I think his words get to the heart of this servile and gullible streak in Americans.
In the last paragraph of the second comment, he says that the conservative movement looks ''like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers.'' That is the gullibility that I mentioned. In a way, though, perhaps this says something good about the basic character of many of these conservatives, in that honest, decent people are usually somewhat gullible, and trusting to a fault. I suspect it's easier to dupe heartland Americans than it would be to gull cynical city-dwellers. That's always been the stereotype of the heartland American: the 'country cousin' who is taken in by some sharp city-slicker.
But in today's more dangerous world, we can't afford that kind of gullibility and blind trust of anyone. Perhaps I've absorbed more cynicism than I would like to, but that's what life experience does to you, unless you live in some kind of Pollyanna bubble into which bad people and bad experiences never intrude.
The comments quoted above stated that Glenn Beck is not perceived as any kind of threat by the Left. Surely they must have enough sense -- mustn't they? -- to see that he venerates the same idols and bows down to their altars. Sometimes I wonder if their outrage towards him is feigned, as if to further cement his popularity with the naifs on the right. If the left attacks someone, surely they must be the real thing, right? Beck must be the conservative savior if the left hates him so much.
I do believe there is such a thing as controlled opposition, and that much of what is acted out on cable 'news' networks is so much pro wrestling drama. The two sides trash-talk and threaten and intimidate each other but behind the scenes they are all probably great friends. Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding is an example of this kind of thing, and yet Rush has his zealous defenders if anyone criticizes him, just as Beck. Or Ann Coulter, or any other such 'entertainer' on the political scene.
One more factor enters into this, in addition to the too-trusting nature of many Americans: the dearth of leadership. Where are our leaders? I can't think of any of the major political figures who inspire me; as Yeats said in The Second Coming:
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Where are our 'best' people? Not on the political scene. There are a few who seem to have integrity, but they are lacking in the 'passionate intensity' that real leadership would demand in this time of trouble.
We've discussed leadership on this blog before, and the lack of leadership is more glaringly obvious now than it was a few years ago when I lamented it. Ron Paul has come and gone, having been a disappointment to many who put too much faith in him, and each betrayal or disappointment disillusions a few more people.
But as long as there is a void of leadership, the snake-oil peddlers and hucksters and charlatans and false messiahs -- and the 'one-eyed men,' the blind leaders of the blind, will step in to fill that vacuum.
And maybe the leaders that we need will not be in the political realm at all. It isn't all about 'Democrats vs. Republicans' or left vs. right, or Islam vs. Christianity or whatever Fox News says it is.
The best thing that could happen to the American populace would be to stop watching television and stop partaking of the 'mainstream' media, including Hollywood movies. That is the source of the ignorance or false information that has become so rife in this country. It should be obvious to even the most slow-witted that the media are not informing or entertaining us, but shaping our minds, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions, and shaping them in a way that may be the end of us, ultimately.
Every day I hear of somebody else dropping their cable or satellite TV service -- yet too many still devour the propaganda willingly. However even turning the TV off will not help if people do not care to inform themselves and cultivate some independence of mind, and a habit of examining what people in 'authority' tell us. That is also part of the message of the comments I posted above.
Long ago, the left liked to spout the phrase 'Question Authority.' Of course, that was in a time in which authority tended to be conservative. I wonder if the left at that time would have anticipated how quickly their kind would come to BE the authority in our society, to be the establishment and the entrenched orthodoxy. They still like to think of themselves as the brave dissenters and principled rebels. That's no longer true; it's the right, especially the politically incorrect right, that are the true dissidents and the upholders of truth.
If we fall prey to the con men and the false pied-pipers of the ''right'', who will be left?
As I was writing that piece, Glenn Beck was foremost in my mind, although there are certainly many other figures who have gained wide popularity in this country based on perceived charisma with a little snake-oil in the recipe.
On an article at American Thinker, which tends to be favorable to the brand of 'conservatism' endorsed by Beck and Fox News, there were two comments by the same individual expressing a lonely skepticism toward Beck and the rally. The comments tied in very much with my message here. I will quote from those comments.
''But there are not a few people who become histrionic if Beck's motives are questioned. Why? Isn't he just a man like the rest of us? Or am I wrong, and he has become a god? The point at issue is (or should be) this: When it is considered an outrage to apply reasoned criticism to an American public figure (even one so revered, so adulated, so "funny," so "adorably pudgy," and so adamant that he is "on the side of the little guy--even though he wouldn't waste a micro-second of his off-air time on the average Joe Shmoe American, then we've got a problem. And the problem is this: we've put peronalities before principles.''
Personalities before principles. That parallels something I said in my earlier post on this subject. And the tendency to reject any criticism of the personalities we admire is not a good thing.
This is the stuff of which cults are made of. It is not worthy of thinking people.
And in a later comment on the same thread, the reader says
''We've become a nation of televidiots. We sit down on our sofas and watch the TV talking heads, like the dolts on MSNBC, an assortment of unspeakably rotten attention whores, BTW. We listen to "talk radio" maestros who daily inform us of their luxurious lifestyles--their golfing, their jets, the famous and "important" people they mixed with over the preceding weekend. In other words, we get our info--ALL our info--second hand. That's not good. Our nation was founded on the premise that there would be an informed citizenry that would inform ITSELF. It's about doing our own heavy lifting in the intellectual realm--our own reading, our own internet research, our own townhall discussion groups. Once we make a commitment to sojourn in that realm we'll have a different view of these Pied Pipers who are reaping exhorbitant wealth by opportunistically using the current onslaught of the Left (a very real onslaught against the very foundations of our Republic) to make gazillions of dollars from selling books, and from astronomical speaking-engagement fees (and don't forget the revenue from show advertisers). This sort of thing sullies the unsung efforts of those who are genuinely and selflessly working hard to stem the tide of the leftist assault--it makes the conservative movement look like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers. I have an uncanny feeling that the Left is actually not really that worried about Mr. Beck's impact on their agenda.''
[I have left the spelling in the quotes as it appeared on the original post.]
I can only agree with what this commenter says. I think his words get to the heart of this servile and gullible streak in Americans.
In the last paragraph of the second comment, he says that the conservative movement looks ''like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers.'' That is the gullibility that I mentioned. In a way, though, perhaps this says something good about the basic character of many of these conservatives, in that honest, decent people are usually somewhat gullible, and trusting to a fault. I suspect it's easier to dupe heartland Americans than it would be to gull cynical city-dwellers. That's always been the stereotype of the heartland American: the 'country cousin' who is taken in by some sharp city-slicker.
But in today's more dangerous world, we can't afford that kind of gullibility and blind trust of anyone. Perhaps I've absorbed more cynicism than I would like to, but that's what life experience does to you, unless you live in some kind of Pollyanna bubble into which bad people and bad experiences never intrude.
The comments quoted above stated that Glenn Beck is not perceived as any kind of threat by the Left. Surely they must have enough sense -- mustn't they? -- to see that he venerates the same idols and bows down to their altars. Sometimes I wonder if their outrage towards him is feigned, as if to further cement his popularity with the naifs on the right. If the left attacks someone, surely they must be the real thing, right? Beck must be the conservative savior if the left hates him so much.
I do believe there is such a thing as controlled opposition, and that much of what is acted out on cable 'news' networks is so much pro wrestling drama. The two sides trash-talk and threaten and intimidate each other but behind the scenes they are all probably great friends. Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding is an example of this kind of thing, and yet Rush has his zealous defenders if anyone criticizes him, just as Beck. Or Ann Coulter, or any other such 'entertainer' on the political scene.
One more factor enters into this, in addition to the too-trusting nature of many Americans: the dearth of leadership. Where are our leaders? I can't think of any of the major political figures who inspire me; as Yeats said in The Second Coming:
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Where are our 'best' people? Not on the political scene. There are a few who seem to have integrity, but they are lacking in the 'passionate intensity' that real leadership would demand in this time of trouble.
We've discussed leadership on this blog before, and the lack of leadership is more glaringly obvious now than it was a few years ago when I lamented it. Ron Paul has come and gone, having been a disappointment to many who put too much faith in him, and each betrayal or disappointment disillusions a few more people.
But as long as there is a void of leadership, the snake-oil peddlers and hucksters and charlatans and false messiahs -- and the 'one-eyed men,' the blind leaders of the blind, will step in to fill that vacuum.
And maybe the leaders that we need will not be in the political realm at all. It isn't all about 'Democrats vs. Republicans' or left vs. right, or Islam vs. Christianity or whatever Fox News says it is.
The best thing that could happen to the American populace would be to stop watching television and stop partaking of the 'mainstream' media, including Hollywood movies. That is the source of the ignorance or false information that has become so rife in this country. It should be obvious to even the most slow-witted that the media are not informing or entertaining us, but shaping our minds, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions, and shaping them in a way that may be the end of us, ultimately.
Every day I hear of somebody else dropping their cable or satellite TV service -- yet too many still devour the propaganda willingly. However even turning the TV off will not help if people do not care to inform themselves and cultivate some independence of mind, and a habit of examining what people in 'authority' tell us. That is also part of the message of the comments I posted above.
Long ago, the left liked to spout the phrase 'Question Authority.' Of course, that was in a time in which authority tended to be conservative. I wonder if the left at that time would have anticipated how quickly their kind would come to BE the authority in our society, to be the establishment and the entrenched orthodoxy. They still like to think of themselves as the brave dissenters and principled rebels. That's no longer true; it's the right, especially the politically incorrect right, that are the true dissidents and the upholders of truth.
If we fall prey to the con men and the false pied-pipers of the ''right'', who will be left?
Labels: Celebrity Culture, Conservatism, Media Figures, Party Politics, Populism, Propaganda, Republicans
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 | admin
Over at the Forum, Glenn W. asks some very good questions, and in hopes of getting some responses from blog readers, I asked Glenn's permission to post this here. There are some very good issues raised and I hope by posting it here to share with you all, it might generate some thoughtful responses:
I have been told that the seeds of the American revolution were sown in the many taverns scattered throughout the thirteen colonies. Men would meet in these taverns and discuss politics and over time began to formulate ideas as to how we could break away from England. I have been encouraged by what I have seen on the internet because I believe that the blogosphere has become the tavern of the 21st century. For the first time in my lifetime men (and woman) can actually meet and discuss important issues of the day without it being filtered by large news organizations. The potential impact is huge.
I can see many issues being discussed as to how to protect our freedoms and our posterity from the very real dangers we are facing in this day and age. Meeting in the "VA tavern" to discuss these issues is the start of finding a solution. So, here we are and the modern version of parliament (aka the imperial congress) just tried to pass the modern version of the Stamp Act (the illegal immigrant amnesty bill). Since those jokers aren't as bright as there press releases would like us to believe, they will keep trying to pass that abomination. This caused alarms to go off for a lot of people who usually don't follow politics and possibly galvanized a real resistance to the insanity.
This is the time to decide on a strategy as to how we should react when the next abomination occurs. Or, maybe there does not need to be only one strategy. I identify with people such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who would now be branded as "bomb throwers." I am sure there were many patriots who were more measured in their approach but as strong in their resolve as Adams and Henry. I do believe that attacks from many directions could be very effective. What should those approaches be? What do I need to do to hold up my end of the bargain? I believe that the political situation will get worse before it gets better. I have never been active in political campaigning but I am willing to hand out tracts and make calls for candidates I believe in but is that enough? If the situation deteriorates to the point where I won't take any more, what should my actions be? Would I be willing to push matters to the point that the founders did with the Boston tea party? What should our Boston tea party be?
This is a bit of a tangent but I will throw it in as well. Going forward we will need a set of common principles that we can agree on. I have seen some of the attempts to come up with a conservative manifesto where there are broad principles that we can all agree to. I am afraid that we have become too fractured and may not be able to come to a consensus. What if we once again used the founders as our inspiration and agreed to restoring a government where we could all live in freedom while having moderately different world views, something like:
1) Once again set boundaries on the federal government so they fulfill their obligations of defending the U.S. from invasion and regulating interstate commerce.
2) Restore the states to being the watchdog over the federal government.
3) Restore the liberties inherent in our constitutional republic where certain rights cannot be violated by any government body. This guards against a tyranny of the majority which the founders feared.
Under this concept of states rights (I may not be using this term precisely but I hope you get my point) I can live in a state where rugged individualism is honored and you can choose to live in a state with a more paternalistic approach to government. You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
I am sure that most of you are way ahead of me on this one and I am interested in what your thoughts are. Can we come up with an approach that we can all live with, and fight for, that avoids some of the stumbling blocks we seem to keep running into?
The time is coming soon where the crisis will be here. How are we going to react to and exploit the next crisis? Will we be willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump a ship load of tea into Boston harbor? I hope so.
I have been told that the seeds of the American revolution were sown in the many taverns scattered throughout the thirteen colonies. Men would meet in these taverns and discuss politics and over time began to formulate ideas as to how we could break away from England. I have been encouraged by what I have seen on the internet because I believe that the blogosphere has become the tavern of the 21st century. For the first time in my lifetime men (and woman) can actually meet and discuss important issues of the day without it being filtered by large news organizations. The potential impact is huge.
I can see many issues being discussed as to how to protect our freedoms and our posterity from the very real dangers we are facing in this day and age. Meeting in the "VA tavern" to discuss these issues is the start of finding a solution. So, here we are and the modern version of parliament (aka the imperial congress) just tried to pass the modern version of the Stamp Act (the illegal immigrant amnesty bill). Since those jokers aren't as bright as there press releases would like us to believe, they will keep trying to pass that abomination. This caused alarms to go off for a lot of people who usually don't follow politics and possibly galvanized a real resistance to the insanity.
This is the time to decide on a strategy as to how we should react when the next abomination occurs. Or, maybe there does not need to be only one strategy. I identify with people such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who would now be branded as "bomb throwers." I am sure there were many patriots who were more measured in their approach but as strong in their resolve as Adams and Henry. I do believe that attacks from many directions could be very effective. What should those approaches be? What do I need to do to hold up my end of the bargain? I believe that the political situation will get worse before it gets better. I have never been active in political campaigning but I am willing to hand out tracts and make calls for candidates I believe in but is that enough? If the situation deteriorates to the point where I won't take any more, what should my actions be? Would I be willing to push matters to the point that the founders did with the Boston tea party? What should our Boston tea party be?
This is a bit of a tangent but I will throw it in as well. Going forward we will need a set of common principles that we can agree on. I have seen some of the attempts to come up with a conservative manifesto where there are broad principles that we can all agree to. I am afraid that we have become too fractured and may not be able to come to a consensus. What if we once again used the founders as our inspiration and agreed to restoring a government where we could all live in freedom while having moderately different world views, something like:
1) Once again set boundaries on the federal government so they fulfill their obligations of defending the U.S. from invasion and regulating interstate commerce.
2) Restore the states to being the watchdog over the federal government.
3) Restore the liberties inherent in our constitutional republic where certain rights cannot be violated by any government body. This guards against a tyranny of the majority which the founders feared.
Under this concept of states rights (I may not be using this term precisely but I hope you get my point) I can live in a state where rugged individualism is honored and you can choose to live in a state with a more paternalistic approach to government. You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
I am sure that most of you are way ahead of me on this one and I am interested in what your thoughts are. Can we come up with an approach that we can all live with, and fight for, that avoids some of the stumbling blocks we seem to keep running into?
The time is coming soon where the crisis will be here. How are we going to react to and exploit the next crisis? Will we be willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump a ship load of tea into Boston harbor? I hope so.
Labels: American Society, Conservatism, Conservative Principles, Government, Patriotism, StateS Rights
0 comment Tuesday, October 14, 2014 | admin
A while back, I read this piece called The GOP: A house divided by Darvin Dowdy. It seemed to me that there is a lot of truth in the blogger's assessment of the state of the Republican Party, and more importantly, conservatism and the country at large.
The GOP has divided like some amoeba on a glass slide under a microscope.
There are the Globalists that continue to warn the various GOP candidates and politicians that they will damage their political careers if they take the side of those wanting to seal the border and strictly enforce existing immigration laws. They blame the discontent by GOP voters on the Iraq War, run-away federal spending and scandalous behavior by elected GOP politicians. They delight in pointing to the downfall of those who have taken strong enforcement first stances. J.D. Hayworth lost his congressional seat in Arizona after taking a tough stance on the border. George Allen of Virginia lost his senate seat, some say for the same reason. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. And in the current presidential race the campaigns of both hard line border enforcement candidates, Hunter and Tancredo appear to be sinking like a rock. Their fundraising efforts a total joke. Or so these geopolitical elitists would want us to believe.
And then there�s our side of the divided amoeba. We don�t really have "advisers" and "strategists" telling us what our next move should be. We live every day with the reality of illegal immigration and its negative, downward pull on our social structure. We�ve observed the illegals banding together, marching in the streets of America. Streets that we as taxpayers have paid to build. We saw them waving Mexican flags and burning American flags. Their monumental ingratitude. We�ve watched our politicians allow these illegal hordes to invade our nation and enjoy rights and privileges that actually accede our own. And when we dared to raise complaints regarding this dangerous and worsening situation these same politicians, that we elected, presented us with disrespect, insults and intimidation. Yet we fight on to maintain and protect our nations sovereignty.
Sadly, we are losing. The globalists controlling our party seem to be gaining the upper hand. Both Hunter and Tancredo are nearly out of cash. The other candidates , good men all, will simply not remain on our side in the long term, in my view. They are making all the correct noises now because they want our votes. But when the battle gets intense they�ll fall back on they�re long proven expertise � the art of compromise.''
This piece was written before Tancredo dropped out of the campaign, but the writer asks where the donors are for candidates like Tancredo and Hunter? That is a good question; why are their campaigns seemingly underfunded? We see the same phenomenon, though, in the case of McCain and Huckabee, who seem not to be raising much money.
So the question begs to be answered � why? Why have the campaigns of Hunter and Tancredo faltered? Certainly its not lack of support. Duncan Hunter recently left the entire GOP pack in the dust in the Texas Straw Poll. No one was even close. He�s also won other straw polls. Tancredo did well in the recent Iowa straw. Why are they so upside down in the fundraising department? Would it be fair to say that their followers are a bunch of dunces who go about waving their flags and emotions in the air? Who are so stupid that they can�t figure out that it takes money to run a campaign? God forbid as I count myself among them. Well the jury is not yet in on that verdict yet. But honestly, something simply doesn�t add up. About 60% of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws. Hunter and Tancredo both have large followings. So where are the donors?
Where the heck are these so called Border Watch groups, I ask? Groups like the Minutemen Project? And U.S. Border Watch? Jim Gilchrist�s Wake Up America? And U.S. Border Control? And these are just a few. There are many more org�s of this nature. But when you visit these sites you see no open support for Hunter or Tancredo. No ads, banners or anything. You can�t tell me that there isn�t a way to, legally, get the word out to their members regarding the fundraising woe�s of these 2 candidates. My gosh the entire Borders/Illegals issue is at stake! Certainly the decision makers within these organizations must have enough snap to know that without enlightened politicians and originalist judges on the bench our cause of U.S. sovereignty is doomed! Many of the org�s have become bogged down in the details and have lost sight of the mission. I ask all who read this to begin some kind of email campaign or other correspondence to these org�s immediately. Especially those who might be members of such groups. Put pressure on them to more aggressively work for our 2 valiant candidates Hunter and/or Tancredo. Withhold your donations to these groups until they regain the correct priorities. Inform them, if they don�t know, of the dire fundraising situation that our 2 candidates face and encourage them to formulate an action plan to help keep these campaigns effective financially. These candidates can not be effective without TV/Radio campaigns and that takes money. ''
Given the fact that most Americans favor controlling our borders and stopping illegal immigration, it is suprising that there doesn't seem to be much financial support for restrictionist candidates and groups. Why is that?
So while the fundraising efforts of our valiant candidates Hunter and Tancredo continue to sink into the quagmire, the globalists that have hijacked "our" GOP are standing around in the shadows having a good laugh at our expense. Snickering at us. Also sinking into the quagmire is our cause of sealing the borders and insisting that our elected officials see to it that immigration laws are strictly enforced. Why should they listen to us? We can�t even keep our own candidates in a liquid financial state. So to all of you who still believe that the notion of national sovereign borders is not an antiquated, obsolete concept, I ask you, do you enjoy the sting of defeat? How do you like being laughed at, rebuked and put back into your place by the elitists?
I also put forth the question � is it too late to reverse this negative trend? Is there still time? I believe there is time but none to waste. I welcome your comments. And who is your least-favorite GOP open borders globalist? ''
Why is it that there is so little money going into the restrictionist cause, seemingly? Do we not believe in the people who are heading up these groups? Given the recent Huckabee/Gilchrist/Simcox stories, it would seem there might be some cause for skepticism now. Will that recent bad publicity lead to further fracturing and weakening of the restrictionist cause? Will Tancredo's dropping out further harm the movement -- especially as it appears there is no 'top tier' candidate to take up the mantle of Tancredo?
It seems as if the Republican Party is more divided now than it has been in my memory, and the divisions are stark and rather bitter in some cases. The liberal wing of the Party is contemptuous of the conservative wing, and expects the latter to obediently go along with the liberal GOP agenda and to expect nothing in return.
The party rank-and-file are being asked to choose between various liberal candidates, each of whom has been anointed as being 'electable', and to simply accept that these choices are the only available options.
It seems to me that this aura of 'electability' is bestowed by the media and the party elites, and that simply the title of 'electable' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. These candidates are 'electable' only if we accept the inevitability of their election -- which too many seem to do. If we say in advance that only these 'top tier' candidates stand a chance, we are taking away the voters' right to choose for themselves. It ain't over till it's over. Neither the biased old media nor the party elites have the right to tell us who can be elected or who can't. If they can make that decision for us, they've essentially taken away our voice in the election.
The GOP has divided like some amoeba on a glass slide under a microscope.
There are the Globalists that continue to warn the various GOP candidates and politicians that they will damage their political careers if they take the side of those wanting to seal the border and strictly enforce existing immigration laws. They blame the discontent by GOP voters on the Iraq War, run-away federal spending and scandalous behavior by elected GOP politicians. They delight in pointing to the downfall of those who have taken strong enforcement first stances. J.D. Hayworth lost his congressional seat in Arizona after taking a tough stance on the border. George Allen of Virginia lost his senate seat, some say for the same reason. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. And in the current presidential race the campaigns of both hard line border enforcement candidates, Hunter and Tancredo appear to be sinking like a rock. Their fundraising efforts a total joke. Or so these geopolitical elitists would want us to believe.
And then there�s our side of the divided amoeba. We don�t really have "advisers" and "strategists" telling us what our next move should be. We live every day with the reality of illegal immigration and its negative, downward pull on our social structure. We�ve observed the illegals banding together, marching in the streets of America. Streets that we as taxpayers have paid to build. We saw them waving Mexican flags and burning American flags. Their monumental ingratitude. We�ve watched our politicians allow these illegal hordes to invade our nation and enjoy rights and privileges that actually accede our own. And when we dared to raise complaints regarding this dangerous and worsening situation these same politicians, that we elected, presented us with disrespect, insults and intimidation. Yet we fight on to maintain and protect our nations sovereignty.
Sadly, we are losing. The globalists controlling our party seem to be gaining the upper hand. Both Hunter and Tancredo are nearly out of cash. The other candidates , good men all, will simply not remain on our side in the long term, in my view. They are making all the correct noises now because they want our votes. But when the battle gets intense they�ll fall back on they�re long proven expertise � the art of compromise.''
This piece was written before Tancredo dropped out of the campaign, but the writer asks where the donors are for candidates like Tancredo and Hunter? That is a good question; why are their campaigns seemingly underfunded? We see the same phenomenon, though, in the case of McCain and Huckabee, who seem not to be raising much money.
So the question begs to be answered � why? Why have the campaigns of Hunter and Tancredo faltered? Certainly its not lack of support. Duncan Hunter recently left the entire GOP pack in the dust in the Texas Straw Poll. No one was even close. He�s also won other straw polls. Tancredo did well in the recent Iowa straw. Why are they so upside down in the fundraising department? Would it be fair to say that their followers are a bunch of dunces who go about waving their flags and emotions in the air? Who are so stupid that they can�t figure out that it takes money to run a campaign? God forbid as I count myself among them. Well the jury is not yet in on that verdict yet. But honestly, something simply doesn�t add up. About 60% of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws. Hunter and Tancredo both have large followings. So where are the donors?
Where the heck are these so called Border Watch groups, I ask? Groups like the Minutemen Project? And U.S. Border Watch? Jim Gilchrist�s Wake Up America? And U.S. Border Control? And these are just a few. There are many more org�s of this nature. But when you visit these sites you see no open support for Hunter or Tancredo. No ads, banners or anything. You can�t tell me that there isn�t a way to, legally, get the word out to their members regarding the fundraising woe�s of these 2 candidates. My gosh the entire Borders/Illegals issue is at stake! Certainly the decision makers within these organizations must have enough snap to know that without enlightened politicians and originalist judges on the bench our cause of U.S. sovereignty is doomed! Many of the org�s have become bogged down in the details and have lost sight of the mission. I ask all who read this to begin some kind of email campaign or other correspondence to these org�s immediately. Especially those who might be members of such groups. Put pressure on them to more aggressively work for our 2 valiant candidates Hunter and/or Tancredo. Withhold your donations to these groups until they regain the correct priorities. Inform them, if they don�t know, of the dire fundraising situation that our 2 candidates face and encourage them to formulate an action plan to help keep these campaigns effective financially. These candidates can not be effective without TV/Radio campaigns and that takes money. ''
Given the fact that most Americans favor controlling our borders and stopping illegal immigration, it is suprising that there doesn't seem to be much financial support for restrictionist candidates and groups. Why is that?
So while the fundraising efforts of our valiant candidates Hunter and Tancredo continue to sink into the quagmire, the globalists that have hijacked "our" GOP are standing around in the shadows having a good laugh at our expense. Snickering at us. Also sinking into the quagmire is our cause of sealing the borders and insisting that our elected officials see to it that immigration laws are strictly enforced. Why should they listen to us? We can�t even keep our own candidates in a liquid financial state. So to all of you who still believe that the notion of national sovereign borders is not an antiquated, obsolete concept, I ask you, do you enjoy the sting of defeat? How do you like being laughed at, rebuked and put back into your place by the elitists?
I also put forth the question � is it too late to reverse this negative trend? Is there still time? I believe there is time but none to waste. I welcome your comments. And who is your least-favorite GOP open borders globalist? ''
Why is it that there is so little money going into the restrictionist cause, seemingly? Do we not believe in the people who are heading up these groups? Given the recent Huckabee/Gilchrist/Simcox stories, it would seem there might be some cause for skepticism now. Will that recent bad publicity lead to further fracturing and weakening of the restrictionist cause? Will Tancredo's dropping out further harm the movement -- especially as it appears there is no 'top tier' candidate to take up the mantle of Tancredo?
It seems as if the Republican Party is more divided now than it has been in my memory, and the divisions are stark and rather bitter in some cases. The liberal wing of the Party is contemptuous of the conservative wing, and expects the latter to obediently go along with the liberal GOP agenda and to expect nothing in return.
The party rank-and-file are being asked to choose between various liberal candidates, each of whom has been anointed as being 'electable', and to simply accept that these choices are the only available options.
It seems to me that this aura of 'electability' is bestowed by the media and the party elites, and that simply the title of 'electable' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. These candidates are 'electable' only if we accept the inevitability of their election -- which too many seem to do. If we say in advance that only these 'top tier' candidates stand a chance, we are taking away the voters' right to choose for themselves. It ain't over till it's over. Neither the biased old media nor the party elites have the right to tell us who can be elected or who can't. If they can make that decision for us, they've essentially taken away our voice in the election.
Labels: Conservatism, Elections, Gop, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Thursday, October 9, 2014 | admin
Here's an interesting piece on Mitt Romney and his shifting positions on immigration:
Some excerpts below.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had a tough message on immigration at a March 22 luncheon in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
``I don't think there should be a special pathway to citizenship for those that are here illegally,'' he said. ``It makes no sense at all to have a border which is basically concrete against skill and education but wide open to people to just walk on in who have neither.''
That position sets the former Massachusetts governor apart from a major rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, as well as President George W. Bush, both of whom back a guest-worker plan that gives undocumented workers the opportunity to become U.S. citizens. It also sets him apart from some of his own former positions.
Over a year ago, Romney said it would be impractical to deport 11 million undocumented workers and suggested giving some the path to citizenship he criticizes today. ``The 11 million or so that are here are not going to be rounded up and box-carted out of America,'' Romney said in a March 29, 2006, interview with Bloomberg News.
Romney's decision to shift his stand demonstrates how a big issue sometimes boils up from the voters, forcing candidates to adjust their messages. ``For Republicans it's immigration; for Democrats it's trade,'' Illinois Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel said yesterday at the American Society of Newspaper Editors meeting in Washington. ``Both issues reflect the unease Americans feel about the effects of globalization.''
[...]
According to a Jan. 5-12 Harris Interactive poll, 73 percent of Republicans see large-scale immigration as an extremely likely or very likely threat; only 43 percent of Democrats feel that way.
[...]
Greg Mankiw, former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and another top Romney adviser, was responsible for the 2005 economic report of the president that made the case for open borders.
``On net, immigration is a positive for the U.S. economy,'' Mankiw said Feb. 17, 2005, on the Public Broadcasting System's Nightly Business Report. During a news briefing earlier that day, he said he remembered his Ukrainian immigrant grandmother sending remittances back home.
``The tradition of workers coming to the U.S. and helping support their often much poorer families abroad is a phenomenon that's existed for many, many decades,'' he said. ``We are a country that absorbs immigrants quite well.'
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden plays down the idea of a philosophical divide over immigration within the campaign. ``Advisers and campaign staffers are just exactly that,'' he said. ``We're dedicated to promoting the ideas and policies of Governor Romney, not our own agendas.''
[Emphasis mine]
However, despite the aide's disclaimer of promoting their own agendas, the comments by Greg Mankiw, with the obligatory sentiments about his 'immigrant grandmother', seems to indicate that personal feelings do influence policy. How liberal is that?
This piece points up some inconsistencies in the opinion polls: while, as the article says, a sizeable majority of GOP voters (73%) see immigration as a threat, still most of these voters seem quite content to accept and support candidates who, like Romney, range from pro-immigration to equivocal pro-enforcement statements.
So why the disconnect? Why do so many people (and not just poll respondents, but real-life people) seem up in arms about our illegal invasion, yet they are happy to settle for the same old, same old, when it comes to picking possible candidates?
The woman, quoted in this part of the article, seems to feel much as I do:
Romney, 60, confronts grassroots anger over the flood of illegal immigrants almost daily. In Council Bluffs, that meant hearing from people like Carol Cates, 53, a local police officer.
``It's going to bankrupt our nation if we don't make some changes soon,'' said Cates, who came to size Romney up at the luncheon. ``That's almost a deal-breaker for me. If they're soft on immigration, I won't even consider them.''
Thank you, Carol Cates; you are a discerning woman, and a woman of integrity. Still I think she is an exception; people who are talking tough on the border issue one moment may be praising Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the next breath. What is that about? Is it denial? Is it cynicism and resignation? I hear comments about how 'Tancredo (or Paul, or Hunter) is not electable; he could never get nominated, much less elected, so we have to be realistic.' That resigned attitude is very common. Yet is there not something of the self-fulfilling prophecy about it? If we never try to raise up a candidate who represents the popular will and traditional principles like, oh, maybe enforcing our borders, and protecting our Republic and our historic culture, we will definitely never have such a candidate. But to this attitude of resignation, I have to ask, what does it say about our Republic if we tell ourselves that the popular will, the will of the majority, has no chance in our system? If we say that, we have all but announced to the world that our system, our Republic, is defunct, deader than a doornail, and that we live in some kind of despotic state now. Have we decided that to be the case? If we believe it, then our belief makes it so.
Look, Mitt Romney may be a good, clean-living, decent man, but I agree with Carol Cates, the policewoman. His wishy-washiness on immigration is a deal-breaker.
I have heard all the responses to this; usually they run along the lines of ''well, we can't have everything we want, and I don't vote just on one issue; smaller government is important, and the War on Terror, and pro-life issues, and stopping gay marriage, and protecting our Second Amendment rights...'' and on and on. Fine; those issues are important to me, too, but I am dumbfounded that people don't see the primacy of the immigration/border issue.
If we fail to take control of our borders and our exploding population of immigrants, legal and illegal, and the transforming of our country, all the rest is moot. Smaller government is impossible when we are being overrun by invaders who are overwhelmingly net users of expensive social programs; there is no way, with open borders and mass immigration that we can ever reduce the size of government and reduce spending. Social programs in particular can only grow and grow, with immigrants being infinitely more costly than our home-grown poor folks. And as far as the terror threat, closing our borders and curtailing all immigration would only reduce our vulnerability to terror attacks. Remember, open borders and amnesty would increase not just Mexican and Latino populations and influence, but also the Moslem 'community' and the implicit dangers thereof. As far as the rest of the conservative agenda, the presence of millions more immigrants will only ensure that the country will move hopelessly leftward, and the conservative influence in our government would dwindle away to nothing; we will be swamped by left-leaning demographics. There will be little hope of preserving our Constitutional rights and our traditional American values in a country which will be made up of a disparate collection of people from diverse countries, the vast majority of whom do not share any, not one, of those traditional American values we claim to cherish.
Our country will be more crime-prone, less safe and secure, and our government will be even more Politically Correct or culturally Marxist than it already is, should we fail to get control of our borders and our promiscuous immigration policy.
Immigration is THE issue; the rest is all secondary, folks. If we fail to take back control of what was once our country, and to elect people who truly represent us, then we will be forever marginalized, and our country handed over to strangers and their collaborators in 'our' government.
Conservatives are supposedly people who are profoundly realistic, but I am seeing a distressing amount of denial and wishful thinking when it comes to picking our next President.
So despite the talk and the complaining about immigration, too many of us are willing to settle for a candidate who represents more of the same, who will at best, do nothing to reverse the dire situation we are in, or who will, at worst, be in favor of an amnesty and the destruction of America as we have known it. We have Rudy 'Sanctuary' Giuliani, with his melting-pot, immigrant sympathies, and we have Romney, who changes with the wind, depending on his audience, and we have John 'Amnesty' McCain; these are our frontrunners. And moving up fast, we have Fred Thompson, who has a lackluster record on immigration, a 'C' grade on his Senate record in the past, and some carefully phrased tough talk on borders. The prospects are not promising.
What will it take to remove the blinders from voters' eyes? I fear we will have just more of the same failed policies, thanks to the timidity and lukewarmness of the American electorate, and the fate of our country will be sealed.
Some excerpts below.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had a tough message on immigration at a March 22 luncheon in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
``I don't think there should be a special pathway to citizenship for those that are here illegally,'' he said. ``It makes no sense at all to have a border which is basically concrete against skill and education but wide open to people to just walk on in who have neither.''
That position sets the former Massachusetts governor apart from a major rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, as well as President George W. Bush, both of whom back a guest-worker plan that gives undocumented workers the opportunity to become U.S. citizens. It also sets him apart from some of his own former positions.
Over a year ago, Romney said it would be impractical to deport 11 million undocumented workers and suggested giving some the path to citizenship he criticizes today. ``The 11 million or so that are here are not going to be rounded up and box-carted out of America,'' Romney said in a March 29, 2006, interview with Bloomberg News.
Romney's decision to shift his stand demonstrates how a big issue sometimes boils up from the voters, forcing candidates to adjust their messages. ``For Republicans it's immigration; for Democrats it's trade,'' Illinois Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel said yesterday at the American Society of Newspaper Editors meeting in Washington. ``Both issues reflect the unease Americans feel about the effects of globalization.''
[...]
According to a Jan. 5-12 Harris Interactive poll, 73 percent of Republicans see large-scale immigration as an extremely likely or very likely threat; only 43 percent of Democrats feel that way.
[...]
Greg Mankiw, former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and another top Romney adviser, was responsible for the 2005 economic report of the president that made the case for open borders.
``On net, immigration is a positive for the U.S. economy,'' Mankiw said Feb. 17, 2005, on the Public Broadcasting System's Nightly Business Report. During a news briefing earlier that day, he said he remembered his Ukrainian immigrant grandmother sending remittances back home.
``The tradition of workers coming to the U.S. and helping support their often much poorer families abroad is a phenomenon that's existed for many, many decades,'' he said. ``We are a country that absorbs immigrants quite well.'
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden plays down the idea of a philosophical divide over immigration within the campaign. ``Advisers and campaign staffers are just exactly that,'' he said. ``We're dedicated to promoting the ideas and policies of Governor Romney, not our own agendas.''
[Emphasis mine]
However, despite the aide's disclaimer of promoting their own agendas, the comments by Greg Mankiw, with the obligatory sentiments about his 'immigrant grandmother', seems to indicate that personal feelings do influence policy. How liberal is that?
This piece points up some inconsistencies in the opinion polls: while, as the article says, a sizeable majority of GOP voters (73%) see immigration as a threat, still most of these voters seem quite content to accept and support candidates who, like Romney, range from pro-immigration to equivocal pro-enforcement statements.
So why the disconnect? Why do so many people (and not just poll respondents, but real-life people) seem up in arms about our illegal invasion, yet they are happy to settle for the same old, same old, when it comes to picking possible candidates?
The woman, quoted in this part of the article, seems to feel much as I do:
Romney, 60, confronts grassroots anger over the flood of illegal immigrants almost daily. In Council Bluffs, that meant hearing from people like Carol Cates, 53, a local police officer.
``It's going to bankrupt our nation if we don't make some changes soon,'' said Cates, who came to size Romney up at the luncheon. ``That's almost a deal-breaker for me. If they're soft on immigration, I won't even consider them.''
Thank you, Carol Cates; you are a discerning woman, and a woman of integrity. Still I think she is an exception; people who are talking tough on the border issue one moment may be praising Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the next breath. What is that about? Is it denial? Is it cynicism and resignation? I hear comments about how 'Tancredo (or Paul, or Hunter) is not electable; he could never get nominated, much less elected, so we have to be realistic.' That resigned attitude is very common. Yet is there not something of the self-fulfilling prophecy about it? If we never try to raise up a candidate who represents the popular will and traditional principles like, oh, maybe enforcing our borders, and protecting our Republic and our historic culture, we will definitely never have such a candidate. But to this attitude of resignation, I have to ask, what does it say about our Republic if we tell ourselves that the popular will, the will of the majority, has no chance in our system? If we say that, we have all but announced to the world that our system, our Republic, is defunct, deader than a doornail, and that we live in some kind of despotic state now. Have we decided that to be the case? If we believe it, then our belief makes it so.
Look, Mitt Romney may be a good, clean-living, decent man, but I agree with Carol Cates, the policewoman. His wishy-washiness on immigration is a deal-breaker.
I have heard all the responses to this; usually they run along the lines of ''well, we can't have everything we want, and I don't vote just on one issue; smaller government is important, and the War on Terror, and pro-life issues, and stopping gay marriage, and protecting our Second Amendment rights...'' and on and on. Fine; those issues are important to me, too, but I am dumbfounded that people don't see the primacy of the immigration/border issue.
If we fail to take control of our borders and our exploding population of immigrants, legal and illegal, and the transforming of our country, all the rest is moot. Smaller government is impossible when we are being overrun by invaders who are overwhelmingly net users of expensive social programs; there is no way, with open borders and mass immigration that we can ever reduce the size of government and reduce spending. Social programs in particular can only grow and grow, with immigrants being infinitely more costly than our home-grown poor folks. And as far as the terror threat, closing our borders and curtailing all immigration would only reduce our vulnerability to terror attacks. Remember, open borders and amnesty would increase not just Mexican and Latino populations and influence, but also the Moslem 'community' and the implicit dangers thereof. As far as the rest of the conservative agenda, the presence of millions more immigrants will only ensure that the country will move hopelessly leftward, and the conservative influence in our government would dwindle away to nothing; we will be swamped by left-leaning demographics. There will be little hope of preserving our Constitutional rights and our traditional American values in a country which will be made up of a disparate collection of people from diverse countries, the vast majority of whom do not share any, not one, of those traditional American values we claim to cherish.
Our country will be more crime-prone, less safe and secure, and our government will be even more Politically Correct or culturally Marxist than it already is, should we fail to get control of our borders and our promiscuous immigration policy.
Immigration is THE issue; the rest is all secondary, folks. If we fail to take back control of what was once our country, and to elect people who truly represent us, then we will be forever marginalized, and our country handed over to strangers and their collaborators in 'our' government.
Conservatives are supposedly people who are profoundly realistic, but I am seeing a distressing amount of denial and wishful thinking when it comes to picking our next President.
So despite the talk and the complaining about immigration, too many of us are willing to settle for a candidate who represents more of the same, who will at best, do nothing to reverse the dire situation we are in, or who will, at worst, be in favor of an amnesty and the destruction of America as we have known it. We have Rudy 'Sanctuary' Giuliani, with his melting-pot, immigrant sympathies, and we have Romney, who changes with the wind, depending on his audience, and we have John 'Amnesty' McCain; these are our frontrunners. And moving up fast, we have Fred Thompson, who has a lackluster record on immigration, a 'C' grade on his Senate record in the past, and some carefully phrased tough talk on borders. The prospects are not promising.
What will it take to remove the blinders from voters' eyes? I fear we will have just more of the same failed policies, thanks to the timidity and lukewarmness of the American electorate, and the fate of our country will be sealed.
Labels: Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Open Borders, Political Parties
0 comment Wednesday, September 24, 2014 | admin
Fellow blogger Flanders Fields warns us:
Don't Trust Fred Thompson
...I will not consider one who pretends to be a conservative but who gets into office to carry water for the leftist corporatists who run our political world in the USA, other countries of the Western world, and much of the entire world.''And here we read about Fred Thompson's Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager, Spencer Abraham, described as an Islamist sympathizer and open borders advocate.
Although we read Thompson's comments on the appalling Hazleton decision, and we see that he is essentially saying the 'right' thing, (though he carefully refers to illegal immigration only), talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. So despite his saying what a prudent candidate would say about the court decision on Hazleton, his choice of Abraham speaks louder than his comments about illegal immigration. And by the way, if he has gotten religion on illegal immigration, he has only recently done so, since he has never shown any restrictionist leanings in his past.
This report from CNN.com tells about the woman protester in Houston who was removed from a welcoming reception for Thompson.
A woman screaming "you�re not a real conservative, sir" was removed by police from a welcoming reception for likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson Wednesday morning. A second protester was also taken from the room.
Houston police officers escorted the woman � as well as a man � from the hangar at Hobby Airport, where Thompson was shaking hands with a crowd of supporters. They were not arrested.
The woman questioned Thompson as he talked to reporters. She asked him why he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and noted that the organization supported the North American Union with Canada and Mexico."
Unfortunately the Fredheads will dismiss this woman, whose statements were substantially correct -- Thompson is not a conservative and is a member of the CFR -- as a 'liberal' or a 'crazy.'
These comments illustrates that mindset:
Fred Thompson is a conservative and he scares his opponents - Democrat and Republican alike. I am excited about him entering the race and look forward to sending him more money.'
There are quite a few comments from readers below the story, and it does appear as though there are plenty of people who are not taken in by Thompson's masquerading as a conservative, which is a hopeful sign despite all the enthusiasm from the GOP faithful and the Fredheads.
Richard Viguerie issues his own warning: Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson
The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?
Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.
This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the "new Reagan"�a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton�s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, "A Star Is Born."
He turned out to be a shooting star�a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, "A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet."
Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.''
Among the reasons Viguerie mentions for distrusting Thompson: his handling of the Asiagate scandal, the Clinton White House's Asian fundraising irregularities, the McCain-Feingold Act, his ''failure of the Goldwater Test'' - which means his failure to show opposition to big government, his "failure of the 'Reagan Test" the question of whether he surrounds himself with conservatives.
And then there is his overall record: 8 years in the Senate, during which he voted:
FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public.
FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership�a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.)
AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate.
[...]
AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton.
FOR affirmative action in federal contracts.
FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as "legal services" to Democratic constituencies.
FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor.
FOR President Clinton�s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion.
[...]
FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups.
FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He�s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.)
And, last but not least:
FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections.''
But of course all these facts will mean nothing to the Fredheads, who will respond along the lines of this commenter on the CNN blog thread linked above:
Add enough of this po� mouthin�, Republican candidates and you all will get Mama Hilary for President. If you think she�s a choice is truely crazy. Explore what she and her hand picked leftest coilition did for Arkansas Public Schools. Heck! She almost did the same thing with the nation�s health care, You think HMOs are Heck??? Well, just keep on going after the rep. candidates and you�ll really get yours after the elections.''
When much of 'conservatism' these days consists of knee-jerk anti-Democrat reactions, and personality cultism (Fred was a TV actor on a popular show! Another Ronald Reagan!) Thompson is the kind of candidate we can expect, unfortunately.
Don't Trust Fred Thompson
...I will not consider one who pretends to be a conservative but who gets into office to carry water for the leftist corporatists who run our political world in the USA, other countries of the Western world, and much of the entire world.''And here we read about Fred Thompson's Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager, Spencer Abraham, described as an Islamist sympathizer and open borders advocate.
Although we read Thompson's comments on the appalling Hazleton decision, and we see that he is essentially saying the 'right' thing, (though he carefully refers to illegal immigration only), talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. So despite his saying what a prudent candidate would say about the court decision on Hazleton, his choice of Abraham speaks louder than his comments about illegal immigration. And by the way, if he has gotten religion on illegal immigration, he has only recently done so, since he has never shown any restrictionist leanings in his past.
This report from CNN.com tells about the woman protester in Houston who was removed from a welcoming reception for Thompson.
A woman screaming "you�re not a real conservative, sir" was removed by police from a welcoming reception for likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson Wednesday morning. A second protester was also taken from the room.
Houston police officers escorted the woman � as well as a man � from the hangar at Hobby Airport, where Thompson was shaking hands with a crowd of supporters. They were not arrested.
The woman questioned Thompson as he talked to reporters. She asked him why he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and noted that the organization supported the North American Union with Canada and Mexico."
Unfortunately the Fredheads will dismiss this woman, whose statements were substantially correct -- Thompson is not a conservative and is a member of the CFR -- as a 'liberal' or a 'crazy.'
These comments illustrates that mindset:
Fred Thompson is a conservative and he scares his opponents - Democrat and Republican alike. I am excited about him entering the race and look forward to sending him more money.'
There are quite a few comments from readers below the story, and it does appear as though there are plenty of people who are not taken in by Thompson's masquerading as a conservative, which is a hopeful sign despite all the enthusiasm from the GOP faithful and the Fredheads.
Richard Viguerie issues his own warning: Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson
The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?
Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.
This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the "new Reagan"�a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton�s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, "A Star Is Born."
He turned out to be a shooting star�a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, "A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet."
Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.''
Among the reasons Viguerie mentions for distrusting Thompson: his handling of the Asiagate scandal, the Clinton White House's Asian fundraising irregularities, the McCain-Feingold Act, his ''failure of the Goldwater Test'' - which means his failure to show opposition to big government, his "failure of the 'Reagan Test" the question of whether he surrounds himself with conservatives.
And then there is his overall record: 8 years in the Senate, during which he voted:
FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public.
FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership�a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.)
AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate.
[...]
AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton.
FOR affirmative action in federal contracts.
FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as "legal services" to Democratic constituencies.
FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor.
FOR President Clinton�s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion.
[...]
FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups.
FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He�s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.)
And, last but not least:
FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections.''
But of course all these facts will mean nothing to the Fredheads, who will respond along the lines of this commenter on the CNN blog thread linked above:
Add enough of this po� mouthin�, Republican candidates and you all will get Mama Hilary for President. If you think she�s a choice is truely crazy. Explore what she and her hand picked leftest coilition did for Arkansas Public Schools. Heck! She almost did the same thing with the nation�s health care, You think HMOs are Heck??? Well, just keep on going after the rep. candidates and you�ll really get yours after the elections.''
When much of 'conservatism' these days consists of knee-jerk anti-Democrat reactions, and personality cultism (Fred was a TV actor on a popular show! Another Ronald Reagan!) Thompson is the kind of candidate we can expect, unfortunately.
Labels: Conservatism, Gop, Party Politics, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates
0 comment | admin
The quality of the attacks on Ron Paul has not been impressive so far and has been deteriorating, with some rather over-the-top rants.
And the vehemence with which some people oppose Ron Paul is a little bewildering: if the critics think Paul is a 'kook' as some of the less imaginative call him, or 'your crazy old uncle who lives in the attic' as some other critic ungraciously called him (and these are 'conservatives' speaking, by the way) then why are they so upset over his candidacy and his ideas? If he is a fringe figure who has a slim chance of being elected, or even nominated, why waste any time denouncing him? Just ignore him as the irrelevancy he is.
However it seems that many 'conservatives' or Republicans, most especially the devoted party types, are worried that Paul's candidacy may siphon off a few votes from their fave candidates, and given that Giuliani and Romney and the fast-fading McCain need whatever support they can glean, since they are generating only lukewarm support, I suppose it makes sense for some people to try to discredit Ron Paul. Or maybe they are irritated by his candidacy because they realize that someone who actually supports conservative principles will draw attention to their candidates' conspicuous lack of conservative credibility.
Or maybe they are rationalizing their own unfaithfulness to any semblance of conservative principles.
I can't guess what motivates John Derbyshire's piece
That Old-Time Religion
which is somewhat fair to Ron Paul, but in the end, dismissive of him.
Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don�t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father�s conservatism � the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul�s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So why aren�t we all piling into the wagon behind Dr. Ron? It�s not that the guy is personally unacceptable in any way. A pious family man, he has worked in an honorable profession � Ob/Gyn medical practice � all his life. (Paul has the slight political advantage of having brought several hundred of his constituents into the world.) He is personally charming and likeable. If not exactly eloquent in the florid, gassy manner American voters are used to from their politicians, he speaks clearly and well, keeps his wits about him, minds his temper, and holds his own in debate. With the positions he has, it�s easy to see why he�s not ahead with the media or the polls, but why isn�t he leading the pack among conservatives?
[...]
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington�s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.
[...]
On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It�s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are � duh! � not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! � whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain�t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!''
Derbyshire acknowledges that some conservatives will be attracted to the conservative policies Paul stands for, but he then dismisses those principles as unrealistic, unattainable, and hence a chimera, a distraction.
This line of argument sounds strangely familiar; we've been here before. The example that comes most readily to my mind is the recall election of 2003, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was running against Republican -- and conservative -- Tom McClintock.
Ironically, in this op-ed piece which appeared at NRO during that campaign, the NRO editorial supported McClintock:
We know that McClintock is currently behind Schwarzenegger in the polls. But we also know that if elected, McClintock would fight the spenders and taxers in Sacramento. About Arnold Schwarzenegger we know no such thing.''
The op-ed writers were correct; Schwarzenegger has proven to be a disappointment to conservatives since taking office.
But the arguments against McClintock, solid conservative that he was, ran something along the lines of this:
For starters, Democrats know McClintock cannot win. They know that he has ran [sic] for statewide office twice before and lost both times. McClintock�s problem is not so much that he�s unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again. Knowing this, a Democrat plot to boost McClintock�s candidacy at Schwarzenegger�s expense has already surfaced.''
And the reason McClintock was declared unelectable? He was 'too conservative', said Schwarzenegger's minions and the usual party hacks.
I don't live in California, hence I had no direct stake in that election, but I spent many an hour arguing online with Republicans on forums who kept arguing that McClintock should drop out and let Schwarzenegger have a clear field; after all, we all knew, said they, that a 'right-wing' type like McClintock was a loser. ''You don't know California; no right-winger can win. Schwarzenegger is the best we can get here. McClintock is a purist, he's too conservative, he'll lose. We need a moderate, somebody who is electable.'' So they got their wish: Schwarzenegger was elected. What's the old saying. be careful what you wish for?
This argument, that McClintock was unelectable, was the most respectable argument against the 'too-conservative, too-purist' McClintock; the less intelligent critics made constant cruel remarks about his slight strabismus, and ridiculed his appearance, much as some of Paul's more dimwitted opponents resort to cheap shots about his age or his haircut.
But it seems to me that Derbyshire is resorting to those old arguments about how being too conservative is political poison. How many times have I heard the 'pragmatists' drag out that quote from Bismarck about politics being ''the art of the possible"? In other words, we can only ever hope to elect candidates who hew to the accepted party line or who don't rock the boat too much, because to support principled men (or women) dooms us to unelectability and political oblivion. Ultimately the message underlying this mindset is that we are doomed to the status quo, however corrupt or pedestrian or hopeless or unacceptable that status quo is. The status quo, the presently accepted order of things, or some slight variant thereof, is all that is 'possible', and we are doomed to the 'possible', to more of the same, in other words.
Thanks but no thanks.
At some point, this mindset becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: we decree that anybody who is radical enough to try to remind us of the Founding Fathers' principles, or even the principles of a half-century ago, is 'unelectable' because he is quixotic or a dreamer or a wacko or a kook or a 'reactionary' or a purist or unelectable. I wonder how many people back in the 18th century said the same things about our Founding Fathers? It seems that a substantial percentage of people in that era were not in favor of our independence from Britain; no doubt they thought the Founding Fathers were extremists or 'fringe' elements. Most people prefer the 'devil they know', the status quo; no matter how unacceptable things are, we are used to them, and few people like real change; it's disruptive and it's frightening for many people. And it's especially frightening to those who have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, for example, party functionaries and people who are insiders in the existing political structures. Or media people.
But if we continue to insist that only people who hew to the existing party line are 'electable' then we guarantee that only such people will ever be nominated and elected. How can we declare in advance that a certain candidate is unelectable? Why even have elections if we know in advance who can or cannot be elected? Let's just poll the party members and media elites and let them tell us who we want. That seems to be what our system amounts to, if these people can tell us in advance who we will or won't vote for.
The only way we can know who the people will choose or won't choose is to let them choose, and let them do so in the voting booth.
If I had my way, we'd stop running so many polls which tell us every other day who and what we want. Polls are intended to influence opinion and shape it as much as to check and report public opinion.
As others have said, the only polls that matter -- or should matter -- are the ones on election day, when we cast our ballots.
But the idea that conservatism cannot do anything but rubber-stamp and preserve the liberal status quo is to make conservatism merely a useless philosophy that does little but try feebly to slow down liberal change, and preserve yesterday's radical left innovations.
And Derbyshire's argument that we couldn't, say, throw out the U.N. because of the predictable howls of protest from the left means essentially that we can't do anything that upsets the left and provokes one of their frequent tantrums. If that is true, we are really and truly done for as a country; reversing some of the harm done by leftists is essential if this Republic is to survive, and we have been far too cowed by the left's hissy fits for too long. Let them howl like spoiled children; they've been allowed to blackmail us by means of their emotional abuse and the result is the chaotic society we live in today.
And the oft-repeated cliche that you can't turn the clock back -- who decreed that? I turn my clock back every fall, when we go back to standard time. I turn my clock back when I travel west across time zones. The idea that once liberals have done something it can never be undone is absurd.
We can nominate an 'electable' Republican who is no conservative, and 'win' as a party, but if conservatism loses, and we elect more of the same failed policies, the Republic loses. What do the fortunes of the party matter, if our country goes down? What have we 'won' if we get another open borders, globalist, big business, interventionist, disconnected elitist?
There's something to be said for daring, and stepping out of line, away from the failed status quo, and trying something different -- or, going back to the tried and true which did work for us for centuries. We know the status quo does not work. Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is madness, so the saying goes.
''If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.'' - Russell Kirk
"We all want progress, but if you�re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis
And the vehemence with which some people oppose Ron Paul is a little bewildering: if the critics think Paul is a 'kook' as some of the less imaginative call him, or 'your crazy old uncle who lives in the attic' as some other critic ungraciously called him (and these are 'conservatives' speaking, by the way) then why are they so upset over his candidacy and his ideas? If he is a fringe figure who has a slim chance of being elected, or even nominated, why waste any time denouncing him? Just ignore him as the irrelevancy he is.
However it seems that many 'conservatives' or Republicans, most especially the devoted party types, are worried that Paul's candidacy may siphon off a few votes from their fave candidates, and given that Giuliani and Romney and the fast-fading McCain need whatever support they can glean, since they are generating only lukewarm support, I suppose it makes sense for some people to try to discredit Ron Paul. Or maybe they are irritated by his candidacy because they realize that someone who actually supports conservative principles will draw attention to their candidates' conspicuous lack of conservative credibility.
Or maybe they are rationalizing their own unfaithfulness to any semblance of conservative principles.
I can't guess what motivates John Derbyshire's piece
That Old-Time Religion
which is somewhat fair to Ron Paul, but in the end, dismissive of him.
Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don�t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father�s conservatism � the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul�s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So why aren�t we all piling into the wagon behind Dr. Ron? It�s not that the guy is personally unacceptable in any way. A pious family man, he has worked in an honorable profession � Ob/Gyn medical practice � all his life. (Paul has the slight political advantage of having brought several hundred of his constituents into the world.) He is personally charming and likeable. If not exactly eloquent in the florid, gassy manner American voters are used to from their politicians, he speaks clearly and well, keeps his wits about him, minds his temper, and holds his own in debate. With the positions he has, it�s easy to see why he�s not ahead with the media or the polls, but why isn�t he leading the pack among conservatives?
[...]
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington�s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.
[...]
On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It�s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are � duh! � not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! � whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain�t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!''
Derbyshire acknowledges that some conservatives will be attracted to the conservative policies Paul stands for, but he then dismisses those principles as unrealistic, unattainable, and hence a chimera, a distraction.
This line of argument sounds strangely familiar; we've been here before. The example that comes most readily to my mind is the recall election of 2003, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was running against Republican -- and conservative -- Tom McClintock.
Ironically, in this op-ed piece which appeared at NRO during that campaign, the NRO editorial supported McClintock:
We know that McClintock is currently behind Schwarzenegger in the polls. But we also know that if elected, McClintock would fight the spenders and taxers in Sacramento. About Arnold Schwarzenegger we know no such thing.''
The op-ed writers were correct; Schwarzenegger has proven to be a disappointment to conservatives since taking office.
But the arguments against McClintock, solid conservative that he was, ran something along the lines of this:
For starters, Democrats know McClintock cannot win. They know that he has ran [sic] for statewide office twice before and lost both times. McClintock�s problem is not so much that he�s unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again. Knowing this, a Democrat plot to boost McClintock�s candidacy at Schwarzenegger�s expense has already surfaced.''
And the reason McClintock was declared unelectable? He was 'too conservative', said Schwarzenegger's minions and the usual party hacks.
I don't live in California, hence I had no direct stake in that election, but I spent many an hour arguing online with Republicans on forums who kept arguing that McClintock should drop out and let Schwarzenegger have a clear field; after all, we all knew, said they, that a 'right-wing' type like McClintock was a loser. ''You don't know California; no right-winger can win. Schwarzenegger is the best we can get here. McClintock is a purist, he's too conservative, he'll lose. We need a moderate, somebody who is electable.'' So they got their wish: Schwarzenegger was elected. What's the old saying. be careful what you wish for?
This argument, that McClintock was unelectable, was the most respectable argument against the 'too-conservative, too-purist' McClintock; the less intelligent critics made constant cruel remarks about his slight strabismus, and ridiculed his appearance, much as some of Paul's more dimwitted opponents resort to cheap shots about his age or his haircut.
But it seems to me that Derbyshire is resorting to those old arguments about how being too conservative is political poison. How many times have I heard the 'pragmatists' drag out that quote from Bismarck about politics being ''the art of the possible"? In other words, we can only ever hope to elect candidates who hew to the accepted party line or who don't rock the boat too much, because to support principled men (or women) dooms us to unelectability and political oblivion. Ultimately the message underlying this mindset is that we are doomed to the status quo, however corrupt or pedestrian or hopeless or unacceptable that status quo is. The status quo, the presently accepted order of things, or some slight variant thereof, is all that is 'possible', and we are doomed to the 'possible', to more of the same, in other words.
Thanks but no thanks.
At some point, this mindset becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: we decree that anybody who is radical enough to try to remind us of the Founding Fathers' principles, or even the principles of a half-century ago, is 'unelectable' because he is quixotic or a dreamer or a wacko or a kook or a 'reactionary' or a purist or unelectable. I wonder how many people back in the 18th century said the same things about our Founding Fathers? It seems that a substantial percentage of people in that era were not in favor of our independence from Britain; no doubt they thought the Founding Fathers were extremists or 'fringe' elements. Most people prefer the 'devil they know', the status quo; no matter how unacceptable things are, we are used to them, and few people like real change; it's disruptive and it's frightening for many people. And it's especially frightening to those who have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, for example, party functionaries and people who are insiders in the existing political structures. Or media people.
But if we continue to insist that only people who hew to the existing party line are 'electable' then we guarantee that only such people will ever be nominated and elected. How can we declare in advance that a certain candidate is unelectable? Why even have elections if we know in advance who can or cannot be elected? Let's just poll the party members and media elites and let them tell us who we want. That seems to be what our system amounts to, if these people can tell us in advance who we will or won't vote for.
The only way we can know who the people will choose or won't choose is to let them choose, and let them do so in the voting booth.
If I had my way, we'd stop running so many polls which tell us every other day who and what we want. Polls are intended to influence opinion and shape it as much as to check and report public opinion.
As others have said, the only polls that matter -- or should matter -- are the ones on election day, when we cast our ballots.
But the idea that conservatism cannot do anything but rubber-stamp and preserve the liberal status quo is to make conservatism merely a useless philosophy that does little but try feebly to slow down liberal change, and preserve yesterday's radical left innovations.
And Derbyshire's argument that we couldn't, say, throw out the U.N. because of the predictable howls of protest from the left means essentially that we can't do anything that upsets the left and provokes one of their frequent tantrums. If that is true, we are really and truly done for as a country; reversing some of the harm done by leftists is essential if this Republic is to survive, and we have been far too cowed by the left's hissy fits for too long. Let them howl like spoiled children; they've been allowed to blackmail us by means of their emotional abuse and the result is the chaotic society we live in today.
And the oft-repeated cliche that you can't turn the clock back -- who decreed that? I turn my clock back every fall, when we go back to standard time. I turn my clock back when I travel west across time zones. The idea that once liberals have done something it can never be undone is absurd.
We can nominate an 'electable' Republican who is no conservative, and 'win' as a party, but if conservatism loses, and we elect more of the same failed policies, the Republic loses. What do the fortunes of the party matter, if our country goes down? What have we 'won' if we get another open borders, globalist, big business, interventionist, disconnected elitist?
There's something to be said for daring, and stepping out of line, away from the failed status quo, and trying something different -- or, going back to the tried and true which did work for us for centuries. We know the status quo does not work. Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is madness, so the saying goes.
''If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.'' - Russell Kirk
"We all want progress, but if you�re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis
Labels: Conservatism, Conservatives, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Tuesday, September 23, 2014 | admin
Chuck Baldwin asked this question last week:
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
[And just off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is an unequivocal YES. given the disappointing batch of faux 'conservatives' who are being presented to us as presidential material.
The bad news is: there may be far fewer conservatives in America than many of us think.]
Here is an excerpt from Baldwin's article:
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
Now, given this last paragraph by Chuck Baldwin, check out the Presidential poll at Right on the Right.
I notice the enthusiastic, almost euphoric response to Fred Thompson's candidacy; who knew that Thompson had so many zealous admirers, or that he is the knight on a white horse who will save conservatism? Maybe the voters and commenters at Right on the Right know something that I don't know, because my assessment of Thompson, based on what I could find about his voting record when he last held office, was rather lackluster. I agree with Baldwin that he would represent more of the same failed neocon policies, and I note that his report card on immigration accorded him only a 'C.' That C is not for conservative, in my book.
Baldwin further spells out the dilemma faced by the grassroots conservatives in the GOP:
The Republican Party's unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney." '
I have had my ear to the ground, as far as the presidential race is concerned, and I am baffled by the fact that a solid majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to amnesty and 'comprehensive immigration reform' or a 'guest worker program' or a 'path to citizenship.' Most Americans at this point are savvy enough not to fall for the double-talk and the euphemisms, and most of us know the politicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these various verbal sleights-of-hand. Yet at the same time, I am hearing a distressing number of Republicans all ready to vote for Rudy, or Mitt, or Fred Thompson, apparently. And then there are always a few who actually think Newt Gingrich is Mr. Conservative, oblivious to the fact that he speaks with a forked tongue on the amnesty/borders issue. He parses his words carefully, trying to sound pro-enforcement, but at the same time, preaches the usual PC platitudes, carefully treading the line, not too far to the right.
So where is the disconnect? Why are people who seem to have certain conservative principles and inclinations so eager to compromise the principles and vote for another open borders guy like Giuliani or a waffler like Romney? Or settle for a guy like Thompson with a lukewarm grade on immigration?
The usual weak excuse given is that 'we can't be purists', and we can't get everything we want in a candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Fair enough, at least it is true up to a point. But some things ought not to be negotiable; some things are so important that we don't compromise on those vital issues, while we might do so on the inconsequential matters.
But how can any real conservative be willing to compromise on the protection of our borders, and on the right to our national sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the will of the majority in this country? By accepting the selling-out of our country and our culture for the sake of cheap labor or globalist designs, we are being asked to accept the loss of America as we have known it.
It needs to be said again: no conservative would favor sweeping changes to our country, irrevocable changes, which would result from amnesty and continued mass immigration. No conservative would be in favor of any policy which goes against the sovereign will of the American majority. This is just not consistent with conservatism, in any way, shape, or form. So anybody who supports amnesty, mass immigration in our present circumstances, and globalism, is not a conservative, no matter what he calls himself.
Giuliani enjoys a lot of support based on his supposedly masterful job of handling the post-9/11 crisis in New York City. But in the wake of 9/11, the man still supported the 'sanctuary city' policy for NYC, in which illegal immigrants are exempted from any consequences of their illegal presence in our country. How can anyone think this is consistent with Giuliani's reputation for 'toughness' and for being a law-and-order kind of guy? It does not square with that image. And advocating such laxity presents a real danger to the safety and security of the city and the country.
So how do GOP voters reconcile these incongruities? They don't. Many simply give the benefit of the doubt to someone they like, to someone who talks a good game or who presents a tough image. President Bush has enjoyed the same benefit of the doubt, as he adopts a tough policy in regard to the War in Iraq but leaves our doors and windows wide open here at home, welcoming not only Latino illegals by the tens of millions, but also more Moslem immigrants and visitors than ever before.
I am seeing less and less difference between the average Republican voter and the average Democrat. I see more people choosing candidates based on personality or image rather than on the principles the candidate supports, or on the actual record of the candidate. I had always assumed that Democrats make emotional choices, not grounded in logic and common sense, but I see plenty of this among Republicans, too.
The only comfort I can take is that it's early days yet; the campaigns begin much too soon, these days, and a lot could and likely will change before the conventions and the elections next year. Things may shake out very differently than we expect; I certainly hope so. If things continue mostly unchanged, I think Baldwin may well be right; the conservatives who are still GOP voters may jump ship. I certainly will, unless a real conservative candidate is nominated.
As I said, though, the number of real conservatives in the GOP might be smaller than I had imagined, at least based on the presidential preferences.
Conservatism needs a real renaissance in order to once again be a force in America; in order for that to happen, I think a lot of people must first recognize that the GOP is not the natural home of conservatism now, if indeed it ever was. I think this upcoming campaign will finally disillusion the real conservatives, and sift the GOP.
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
[And just off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is an unequivocal YES. given the disappointing batch of faux 'conservatives' who are being presented to us as presidential material.
The bad news is: there may be far fewer conservatives in America than many of us think.]
Here is an excerpt from Baldwin's article:
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
Now, given this last paragraph by Chuck Baldwin, check out the Presidential poll at Right on the Right.
I notice the enthusiastic, almost euphoric response to Fred Thompson's candidacy; who knew that Thompson had so many zealous admirers, or that he is the knight on a white horse who will save conservatism? Maybe the voters and commenters at Right on the Right know something that I don't know, because my assessment of Thompson, based on what I could find about his voting record when he last held office, was rather lackluster. I agree with Baldwin that he would represent more of the same failed neocon policies, and I note that his report card on immigration accorded him only a 'C.' That C is not for conservative, in my book.
Baldwin further spells out the dilemma faced by the grassroots conservatives in the GOP:
The Republican Party's unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney." '
I have had my ear to the ground, as far as the presidential race is concerned, and I am baffled by the fact that a solid majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to amnesty and 'comprehensive immigration reform' or a 'guest worker program' or a 'path to citizenship.' Most Americans at this point are savvy enough not to fall for the double-talk and the euphemisms, and most of us know the politicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these various verbal sleights-of-hand. Yet at the same time, I am hearing a distressing number of Republicans all ready to vote for Rudy, or Mitt, or Fred Thompson, apparently. And then there are always a few who actually think Newt Gingrich is Mr. Conservative, oblivious to the fact that he speaks with a forked tongue on the amnesty/borders issue. He parses his words carefully, trying to sound pro-enforcement, but at the same time, preaches the usual PC platitudes, carefully treading the line, not too far to the right.
So where is the disconnect? Why are people who seem to have certain conservative principles and inclinations so eager to compromise the principles and vote for another open borders guy like Giuliani or a waffler like Romney? Or settle for a guy like Thompson with a lukewarm grade on immigration?
The usual weak excuse given is that 'we can't be purists', and we can't get everything we want in a candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Fair enough, at least it is true up to a point. But some things ought not to be negotiable; some things are so important that we don't compromise on those vital issues, while we might do so on the inconsequential matters.
But how can any real conservative be willing to compromise on the protection of our borders, and on the right to our national sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the will of the majority in this country? By accepting the selling-out of our country and our culture for the sake of cheap labor or globalist designs, we are being asked to accept the loss of America as we have known it.
It needs to be said again: no conservative would favor sweeping changes to our country, irrevocable changes, which would result from amnesty and continued mass immigration. No conservative would be in favor of any policy which goes against the sovereign will of the American majority. This is just not consistent with conservatism, in any way, shape, or form. So anybody who supports amnesty, mass immigration in our present circumstances, and globalism, is not a conservative, no matter what he calls himself.
Giuliani enjoys a lot of support based on his supposedly masterful job of handling the post-9/11 crisis in New York City. But in the wake of 9/11, the man still supported the 'sanctuary city' policy for NYC, in which illegal immigrants are exempted from any consequences of their illegal presence in our country. How can anyone think this is consistent with Giuliani's reputation for 'toughness' and for being a law-and-order kind of guy? It does not square with that image. And advocating such laxity presents a real danger to the safety and security of the city and the country.
So how do GOP voters reconcile these incongruities? They don't. Many simply give the benefit of the doubt to someone they like, to someone who talks a good game or who presents a tough image. President Bush has enjoyed the same benefit of the doubt, as he adopts a tough policy in regard to the War in Iraq but leaves our doors and windows wide open here at home, welcoming not only Latino illegals by the tens of millions, but also more Moslem immigrants and visitors than ever before.
I am seeing less and less difference between the average Republican voter and the average Democrat. I see more people choosing candidates based on personality or image rather than on the principles the candidate supports, or on the actual record of the candidate. I had always assumed that Democrats make emotional choices, not grounded in logic and common sense, but I see plenty of this among Republicans, too.
The only comfort I can take is that it's early days yet; the campaigns begin much too soon, these days, and a lot could and likely will change before the conventions and the elections next year. Things may shake out very differently than we expect; I certainly hope so. If things continue mostly unchanged, I think Baldwin may well be right; the conservatives who are still GOP voters may jump ship. I certainly will, unless a real conservative candidate is nominated.
As I said, though, the number of real conservatives in the GOP might be smaller than I had imagined, at least based on the presidential preferences.
Conservatism needs a real renaissance in order to once again be a force in America; in order for that to happen, I think a lot of people must first recognize that the GOP is not the natural home of conservatism now, if indeed it ever was. I think this upcoming campaign will finally disillusion the real conservatives, and sift the GOP.
Labels: Conservatism, Gop, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Wednesday, September 10, 2014 | admin
Is conservatism worth conserving?
A recurring subject on this blog has been the state of conservatism, and what conservatism actually means these days. It's a commonplace observation now that there are many conflicting and contradictory viewpoints which are included under the label 'conservative'. The contradictions have become ever more glaringly obvious during the present Presidential campaign, in which the term 'conservative' is used to describe a gamut of views from those of John McCain to Tom Tancredo to Ron Paul. How can such a disparate group of people be described as conservative while still preserving any kind of fixed definition of conservatism?
There is quite a spectrum of viewpoints there.
Now we have the various shades of 'conservatism': neoconservatism (whose advocates often vociferously deny, first, that there is such a thing as neoconservatism, and second, that they themselves are neoconservatives), paleoconservatives (many of whom also reject that label) and 'traditionalists'.
Lately it has seemed to me that 'traditionalists' are also an ill-defined group, being divided among the more mainstream Republicans (who may oppose illegal immigration and multiculturalism as well as the Iraq war), and those who are closer to the paleoconservative viewpoint, but who may dissent from the paleos on issues like the Middle East or social issues.
The last few years for me have been a journey away from the Republican mainstream. This shifting of opinions on my part had mostly to do with the immigration issue and the national question, and later, with the Iraq war and interventionism in general.
One conclusion that was inescapable for me is that conservatism as it stands today is in the business of conserving yesterday's liberalism. That observation is not original with me; others have noted it, including R.L. Dabney in the 19th century. It is even more true today than it was in his day.
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.'' - Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 4 [1897].
So how can we respond to this 'loss of savor' within conservatism? Can we rediscover the Original Scriptures of conservatism like Hilkiah the high priest finding the forgotten book of the Law in II Kings ? That would make it easy; if only we had a Bible of conservatism to keep us on the straight and narrow, to keep us true and on target. But the problem is, 'conservatism' is not an ideology and it is not a set of dogmas or a rigid group of precepts. Conservatism is always particular to a time and place and people. It's about conserving the true and the classical and the traditional, the time-honored, within a particular civilization and its heritage.
As I observe life, I notice that more and more, it seems we really did begin anew in the post-counterculture era, after the late 60s and 70s. True, we didn't suddenly throw out the calendar and decree a new beginning officially as did the revolutionaries in 18th century France. But our world did change then, and it was done rather suddenly in many cases but very gradually in others, so that we've scarcely noticed how very different our world is from what it was before the 60s Revolution. And we as a people and as a culture have changed considerably. We have all become, to some degree or another, accepting of the post-60s liberal and radical innovations in our way of life and our behavior.
I am a keen watcher of people, and what I see around me, even among 'conservatives', is a country of people who are children of the counterculture in many respects. A lot of the old traditions which lent some gentility to daily life: social niceties, etiquette, chivalry (which means far more than opening doors for ladies) decorum, restraint. All these things are conspicuously missing in our society.
The old America had certain ways of doing things, and certain rules, often unspoken, that acted as a social lubricant, minimizing friction between people. There was a hierarchy in society, and our liberal egalitarian age rebels against any hint of hierarchies. But it used to be that one's elders were respected, as were authority figures in general. Differences between the sexes were acknowledged and adjusted for accordingly. Children were taught to honor their parents and elders.
Now we are all rank egalitarians; women and men are expected to behave the same, and we indulge in this pretense that women are the equals of men in all respects, including bodily strength and size. Gone are most of the displays of courtesy like titles before names: Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. College students and even high school students call their teachers by their first names; the teachers seem mostly flattered by this display of familiarity; I think it helps them maintain an illusion that they are still young, and that their students are their peers and friends.
Back in the 1970s, after Nixon made his famous trip to China and normalized relations with the Communist regime there, we were deluged with images of life in Communist China. One of the striking things to a Westerner, at least to me, was the fact that the Chinese people we saw in the pictures of the teeming cities of China was their uniformity. The men all wore the 'Mao jackets' and caps; the women, too, wore some kind of drab proletarian uniform-style garb. Everybody dressed the same. You could see no distinctions in their dress to indicate any kind of class distinctions, much less individual differences.
Now, of course, China is much more Westernized in outward aspects, at least, but oddly we in the West have begun to follow the example of Mao-era China, voluntarily donning drab proletarian-style clothes which look very uniform-like. Nondescript shirts and jackets, jeans, and athletic shoes -- even the old folks with walkers or canes are decked out in The Uniform: running shoes and jeans. We see the same style of clothing everywhere: shopping, going to the theatre or to a concert or even to church: jeans, running shoes, shapeless clothes.
The 70s brought the 'unisex' trend in which men and women increasingly dressed alike. This trend has not gone away. We seem to be determined to erase or level out all the visible differences among us. And now, the old dress much as their middle-aged children do. It used to be that old people had their own distinctive style which was always appropriate to their age and station. Nowadays there are more 60-year-olds dressing like 30-year-olds.
Class differences, generational differences, sex differences, all these distinctions seem to be played down in the New America, at least in our outward appearance.
Now, some will say 'but clothes are superficial; clothes don't make the man (or woman)'. It's true, they don't, but clothes certainly reflect our priorities. And it seems we are moving more towards uniformity and egalitarianism, judging by the way we present ourselves.
And I think it's no accident that there is less respect for age, sex, and authority now than there was in the Old America.
The decline in civility is a problem that is visible everywhere we go; people seem to have hair-trigger tempers and a barely-concealed hostility towards others in too many situations. Old America was not like this.
Post-60s America is not the same place, if we look at society and human interaction, as it was before. The skeptic will answer that nothing stays the same; each generation differs from the one preceding it, and from the one following. It's true that change is the one constant in this world, but does that mean that we have to accept change willy-nilly, regardless of whether it's beneficial or destructive? No; being a 'conservative' should mean trying to preserve that which is good and trying to stave off whatever is corrosive and destructive of our way of life and our heritage. Civilization depends on continuity; if we are civilized and we have a way of life which has worked well for us, which we have, then passing that civilization on to the coming generations in as intact a form as possible is the essence of maintaining civilization. Once we discard all that was good and all that fostered stability and equilibrium, then 'things fall apart; the center cannot hold.'
Somewhere along the line we were duped out of our birthright, just as Esau was, and for similar reasons; we focus too much on the here and now and on our own gratification without thinking of tomorrow or of the generations to come. And somehow we've been duped into believing that 'conservatism' means a particular political party, or lower taxes and smaller government, when it really has so much more to do with the way we live our daily lives, the rules which govern our interactions among ourselves, and the principle of continuity and respect for the past.
And on those criteria, I encounter precious few conservatives today. We have mostly become petulant children of the counterculture, with all the arrogance and impetuousness inherent in that era.
We have lost the essential part of conservatism, which is the society we are supposedly trying to preserve, and ultimately the people who create that society. Once we've accepted the liberal goals such as egalitarianism and the leveling out of all distinctions, along with the idea that human history is 'progressive' and ever improving, then we have become what we claim to despise.
At this point I am no longer losing sleep over the fortunes of something called 'conservatism'. Conservatism is a diversion and a distraction; what we should be concerned over is our heritage and our way of life and our people. That is what we should be preserving -- or, more accurately, restoring.
We don't need to read any holy canons of Conservatism to find our way back; we have the example of the generations that went before us, and their time-tested ways of living and being and doing. We have the authority we seek, contained in the lives of our forefathers.
We need to shed the liberalism and egalitarian progressivism which has warped every area of our lives. We need to scrape away the accretions of the past few decades from the palimpsest of America and find our true heritage underneath the crude scrawlings of the recent past.
A recurring subject on this blog has been the state of conservatism, and what conservatism actually means these days. It's a commonplace observation now that there are many conflicting and contradictory viewpoints which are included under the label 'conservative'. The contradictions have become ever more glaringly obvious during the present Presidential campaign, in which the term 'conservative' is used to describe a gamut of views from those of John McCain to Tom Tancredo to Ron Paul. How can such a disparate group of people be described as conservative while still preserving any kind of fixed definition of conservatism?
There is quite a spectrum of viewpoints there.
Now we have the various shades of 'conservatism': neoconservatism (whose advocates often vociferously deny, first, that there is such a thing as neoconservatism, and second, that they themselves are neoconservatives), paleoconservatives (many of whom also reject that label) and 'traditionalists'.
Lately it has seemed to me that 'traditionalists' are also an ill-defined group, being divided among the more mainstream Republicans (who may oppose illegal immigration and multiculturalism as well as the Iraq war), and those who are closer to the paleoconservative viewpoint, but who may dissent from the paleos on issues like the Middle East or social issues.
The last few years for me have been a journey away from the Republican mainstream. This shifting of opinions on my part had mostly to do with the immigration issue and the national question, and later, with the Iraq war and interventionism in general.
One conclusion that was inescapable for me is that conservatism as it stands today is in the business of conserving yesterday's liberalism. That observation is not original with me; others have noted it, including R.L. Dabney in the 19th century. It is even more true today than it was in his day.
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.'' - Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 4 [1897].
So how can we respond to this 'loss of savor' within conservatism? Can we rediscover the Original Scriptures of conservatism like Hilkiah the high priest finding the forgotten book of the Law in II Kings ? That would make it easy; if only we had a Bible of conservatism to keep us on the straight and narrow, to keep us true and on target. But the problem is, 'conservatism' is not an ideology and it is not a set of dogmas or a rigid group of precepts. Conservatism is always particular to a time and place and people. It's about conserving the true and the classical and the traditional, the time-honored, within a particular civilization and its heritage.
As I observe life, I notice that more and more, it seems we really did begin anew in the post-counterculture era, after the late 60s and 70s. True, we didn't suddenly throw out the calendar and decree a new beginning officially as did the revolutionaries in 18th century France. But our world did change then, and it was done rather suddenly in many cases but very gradually in others, so that we've scarcely noticed how very different our world is from what it was before the 60s Revolution. And we as a people and as a culture have changed considerably. We have all become, to some degree or another, accepting of the post-60s liberal and radical innovations in our way of life and our behavior.
I am a keen watcher of people, and what I see around me, even among 'conservatives', is a country of people who are children of the counterculture in many respects. A lot of the old traditions which lent some gentility to daily life: social niceties, etiquette, chivalry (which means far more than opening doors for ladies) decorum, restraint. All these things are conspicuously missing in our society.
The old America had certain ways of doing things, and certain rules, often unspoken, that acted as a social lubricant, minimizing friction between people. There was a hierarchy in society, and our liberal egalitarian age rebels against any hint of hierarchies. But it used to be that one's elders were respected, as were authority figures in general. Differences between the sexes were acknowledged and adjusted for accordingly. Children were taught to honor their parents and elders.
Now we are all rank egalitarians; women and men are expected to behave the same, and we indulge in this pretense that women are the equals of men in all respects, including bodily strength and size. Gone are most of the displays of courtesy like titles before names: Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. College students and even high school students call their teachers by their first names; the teachers seem mostly flattered by this display of familiarity; I think it helps them maintain an illusion that they are still young, and that their students are their peers and friends.
Back in the 1970s, after Nixon made his famous trip to China and normalized relations with the Communist regime there, we were deluged with images of life in Communist China. One of the striking things to a Westerner, at least to me, was the fact that the Chinese people we saw in the pictures of the teeming cities of China was their uniformity. The men all wore the 'Mao jackets' and caps; the women, too, wore some kind of drab proletarian uniform-style garb. Everybody dressed the same. You could see no distinctions in their dress to indicate any kind of class distinctions, much less individual differences.
Now, of course, China is much more Westernized in outward aspects, at least, but oddly we in the West have begun to follow the example of Mao-era China, voluntarily donning drab proletarian-style clothes which look very uniform-like. Nondescript shirts and jackets, jeans, and athletic shoes -- even the old folks with walkers or canes are decked out in The Uniform: running shoes and jeans. We see the same style of clothing everywhere: shopping, going to the theatre or to a concert or even to church: jeans, running shoes, shapeless clothes.
The 70s brought the 'unisex' trend in which men and women increasingly dressed alike. This trend has not gone away. We seem to be determined to erase or level out all the visible differences among us. And now, the old dress much as their middle-aged children do. It used to be that old people had their own distinctive style which was always appropriate to their age and station. Nowadays there are more 60-year-olds dressing like 30-year-olds.
Class differences, generational differences, sex differences, all these distinctions seem to be played down in the New America, at least in our outward appearance.
Now, some will say 'but clothes are superficial; clothes don't make the man (or woman)'. It's true, they don't, but clothes certainly reflect our priorities. And it seems we are moving more towards uniformity and egalitarianism, judging by the way we present ourselves.
And I think it's no accident that there is less respect for age, sex, and authority now than there was in the Old America.
The decline in civility is a problem that is visible everywhere we go; people seem to have hair-trigger tempers and a barely-concealed hostility towards others in too many situations. Old America was not like this.
Post-60s America is not the same place, if we look at society and human interaction, as it was before. The skeptic will answer that nothing stays the same; each generation differs from the one preceding it, and from the one following. It's true that change is the one constant in this world, but does that mean that we have to accept change willy-nilly, regardless of whether it's beneficial or destructive? No; being a 'conservative' should mean trying to preserve that which is good and trying to stave off whatever is corrosive and destructive of our way of life and our heritage. Civilization depends on continuity; if we are civilized and we have a way of life which has worked well for us, which we have, then passing that civilization on to the coming generations in as intact a form as possible is the essence of maintaining civilization. Once we discard all that was good and all that fostered stability and equilibrium, then 'things fall apart; the center cannot hold.'
Somewhere along the line we were duped out of our birthright, just as Esau was, and for similar reasons; we focus too much on the here and now and on our own gratification without thinking of tomorrow or of the generations to come. And somehow we've been duped into believing that 'conservatism' means a particular political party, or lower taxes and smaller government, when it really has so much more to do with the way we live our daily lives, the rules which govern our interactions among ourselves, and the principle of continuity and respect for the past.
And on those criteria, I encounter precious few conservatives today. We have mostly become petulant children of the counterculture, with all the arrogance and impetuousness inherent in that era.
We have lost the essential part of conservatism, which is the society we are supposedly trying to preserve, and ultimately the people who create that society. Once we've accepted the liberal goals such as egalitarianism and the leveling out of all distinctions, along with the idea that human history is 'progressive' and ever improving, then we have become what we claim to despise.
At this point I am no longer losing sleep over the fortunes of something called 'conservatism'. Conservatism is a diversion and a distraction; what we should be concerned over is our heritage and our way of life and our people. That is what we should be preserving -- or, more accurately, restoring.
We don't need to read any holy canons of Conservatism to find our way back; we have the example of the generations that went before us, and their time-tested ways of living and being and doing. We have the authority we seek, contained in the lives of our forefathers.
We need to shed the liberalism and egalitarian progressivism which has warped every area of our lives. We need to scrape away the accretions of the past few decades from the palimpsest of America and find our true heritage underneath the crude scrawlings of the recent past.
Labels: American Identity, Conservatism, Conservative Principles, Egalitarianism, Heritage
0 comment Thursday, August 28, 2014 | admin
A recent discussion on this blog addressed the question of potential scenarios for a breakup of the United States. What about the possibility of a political solution to our pressing problems? Is it plausible? Can it be done by political means, presumably by means of working within the existing system?
I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.
The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.
Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'
I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.
However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?
So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?
Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.
Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.
Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?
Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?
I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.
The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.
Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'
I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.
However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?
So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?
Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.
Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.
Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?
Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?
Labels: Conservatism, Democracy, Demographics, Gop, Political Parties, Politics, Social Change
0 comment Monday, August 11, 2014 | admin
Linda Chavez's opinion piece on immigration is hardly a surprise. Despite her claims to being a conservative, she has consistently been on the side of illegal immigrants, and in fact at one point, was denied a cabinet post in the first Bush adminstration because of the fact that she had harbored an illegal immigrant in her home as a domestic.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.
Labels: Amnesty, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Political Parties