Conservatism Bleg
I understand that the term for inviting blog readers to submit information is: 'bleg'. I am now blegging. Actually I am feeling pressure. You see for a while I have been alluding to a future blog to explain my own personal take on defining conservatism. I am by no means delusional to the point of thinking that conservatism has never been defined. I just want to put into words what it means to me. Along the way I have occassionally posted things that are part of that greater discussion, but I really intend to put it all together in the mother of all blogs. Of course this assumes that Blogger, my wonderful host, won't crash;)
I have been putting it off, but yesterday I got an email from a reader providing me with a link to a site that he thought might be helpful in my attempt at defining the Unified Conservative Theory. I REALLY appreciated that. It made me feel a little pressure to realize that a reader ACTUALLY is waiting to read what I have to say. Then it gave me an idea. Since there is no way for me to ever single-handedly compile every thing that has been said in defining conservatism maybe readers would be willing to help me out. I know I don't have a large readership, but the few and the proud could be helpful. So, if you do see something out there in an article or the blogosphere send me a link; if you wrote an essay in a college political science class send me a copy; and if you have a recommended reading list send it to me. I can't promise to process or include everything, but I will make sure that you get a thank you.
I can be reached as always at james at rightoneverything dot com.
Thanks!
Jul 25, 2003
Damned if you do and damned if you don't
That is the message we are getting about using the intelligence provided by all the spooks out there.
That is the message we are getting about using the intelligence provided by all the spooks out there.
Krugman vs. Greenspan
Today Paul Krugman decided to take on Alan Greenspan. To begin with let me make a disclaimer: I have mixed feelings about Greenspan and see no reason to defend him since I think he stands on his own record well enough. But I do think this is another example of Paul Krugman waving his PhD in Economics in front of you and I while not being honest about economics.
You see the problem with Greenspan is that he is a sincere economist. Let me tell a story to make my point. I was once a teaching assistant for an Economics Professor teaching Economics 110--yes, the general introductory course. Just so people know who I am talking about the professor was Jim Kearl. He had just finished a week or two of lectures that made it very clear that government was BAD. Some student walked up to Dr. Kearl after class and said something to the effect of: 'I love you and now I have another reason to hate the government and taxes.' To which Dr. Kearl said something like: 'Not so fast, next week I will be talking about the inefficiencies of the free market and you will see that government is not always bad'. Dr Kearl did not disappoint. You see Dr. Kearl is a PhD in Economics with academic integrity.
What does that mean? The biggest problem with learning economics was that for a while I felt paralyzed by all that I now know. You see the biggest lesson in economics is summed up by the statement: 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. The more you learn about economics the more you realize that there is nothing that happens independently. Economists analyze each thing independently in order to understand it better, but at some point it all gets put into play as one big system. So, for instance, if I cut taxes without cutting spending then I will have a larger deficit which might cause interests rates to rise, but at the same time there will be increased spending by consumers who now have more disposable income and greater savings by those same consumers and corporations selling them stuff which would bring down interest rates as a countering force to the deficit... This can keep going on endlessly since there are so many things that can be affected. At some point serious economists perform studies in order to assign actual numbers to the actual effects and it is true that some effects are greater than others. But it can get very complicated very fast. So an honest economist, like Alan Greenspan is unwilling to go on record just saying: "Tax cuts are good". Instead he qualifies and points things out. He says that tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts in order to be effective.
Which brings me back to Paul Krugman. He is dishonest. He would have you believe that the tax cut is the cause of all evil in the economy. This is simply untrue as demonstrated by when the tax cuts took effect and when the downturn began. Krugman would also have you believe that tax cuts are the reason for the current deficit size. This can also be seen as untrue when one considers how much of the tax cut has actually taken effect already. But just in case you think I am being overly critical of Krugman why don't you read the entire text of Greenspans testimony to Congress and see what he really said.
Today Paul Krugman decided to take on Alan Greenspan. To begin with let me make a disclaimer: I have mixed feelings about Greenspan and see no reason to defend him since I think he stands on his own record well enough. But I do think this is another example of Paul Krugman waving his PhD in Economics in front of you and I while not being honest about economics.
You see the problem with Greenspan is that he is a sincere economist. Let me tell a story to make my point. I was once a teaching assistant for an Economics Professor teaching Economics 110--yes, the general introductory course. Just so people know who I am talking about the professor was Jim Kearl. He had just finished a week or two of lectures that made it very clear that government was BAD. Some student walked up to Dr. Kearl after class and said something to the effect of: 'I love you and now I have another reason to hate the government and taxes.' To which Dr. Kearl said something like: 'Not so fast, next week I will be talking about the inefficiencies of the free market and you will see that government is not always bad'. Dr Kearl did not disappoint. You see Dr. Kearl is a PhD in Economics with academic integrity.
What does that mean? The biggest problem with learning economics was that for a while I felt paralyzed by all that I now know. You see the biggest lesson in economics is summed up by the statement: 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. The more you learn about economics the more you realize that there is nothing that happens independently. Economists analyze each thing independently in order to understand it better, but at some point it all gets put into play as one big system. So, for instance, if I cut taxes without cutting spending then I will have a larger deficit which might cause interests rates to rise, but at the same time there will be increased spending by consumers who now have more disposable income and greater savings by those same consumers and corporations selling them stuff which would bring down interest rates as a countering force to the deficit... This can keep going on endlessly since there are so many things that can be affected. At some point serious economists perform studies in order to assign actual numbers to the actual effects and it is true that some effects are greater than others. But it can get very complicated very fast. So an honest economist, like Alan Greenspan is unwilling to go on record just saying: "Tax cuts are good". Instead he qualifies and points things out. He says that tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts in order to be effective.
Which brings me back to Paul Krugman. He is dishonest. He would have you believe that the tax cut is the cause of all evil in the economy. This is simply untrue as demonstrated by when the tax cuts took effect and when the downturn began. Krugman would also have you believe that tax cuts are the reason for the current deficit size. This can also be seen as untrue when one considers how much of the tax cut has actually taken effect already. But just in case you think I am being overly critical of Krugman why don't you read the entire text of Greenspans testimony to Congress and see what he really said.
Bush Conservatism Questioned Long Ago
Here is a link to an opinion piece by Veronique de Rugy of Cato. Long before Andrew Sullivan claimed to have been the first to say that Bush may not be all that conservative, long before George Will questioned it, and long before I started getting that sick spot in the pit of my stomach, Veronique pointed out that Bush was no conservative.
What is W? W is a politician. A pretty damn fine one at that. On top of it he is a political strategist who studies history. I am looking for the quote, but way back during the election of 2000 there was a story that pointed out that when Bush Sr was running for office W was very involved in the day to day political campaign operations. In fact, he was the guy who would go to the bar with the press corps after a long day on the campaign trail--presumably he drank 7-up. It was obvious to the reporters that he had a great handle on what was going on. Again, what I have just said is unsubstantiated until I can find the quote--readers?
But, what I can assess is his track record. Ever since I became aware of George W Bush I contended that he was smart. My reason for believing this was his clear election strategy. W looked at each of the errors of the previous candidates for President at least as far back as Reagan/Carter and made sure his strategy would avoid previous pitfalls. To use a saying usually applied to the military: he fought all the previous elections. Every failure by the Bush strategy team has always been in areas that they could not have anticipated--brand new ground. In fact, I am convinced this is why the smart liberals are so afraid of Bush--they assume that he will not make the mistakes of the father on things like Supreme Court nominations. Back to the election.
W’s strategy for winning momentum in the primaries was clearly aimed at Steve Forbes. Forbes had really been the greatest problem for Bob Dole in the Republican primaries in 1996. It was a safe assumption he would return. Forbes was a darling to economic conservatives, but most of us realized he was a nerd that could never win. When W came along and made tax cuts his biggest campaign issue Forbes was dead. Furthermore, W made sure he had a sound campaign organization in the early states that Forbes had done well in. The next thing Bush did was most clever. After Dole had been through a bruising primary he was out of money and limited by public campaign finance spending limits that applied because he had accepted public funds. This hurt him in the months after the primaries were settled but before the Republican convention. He could not spend. Meanwhile, Clinton and the DNC coordinated a series of ads that positioned Dole at a time when Dole could not respond. George W Bush took a gamble that if he could make it to the end he needed to have the flexibility to spend money to respond if and when the DNC tried this tactic again. Back to my point, the thing that caused W the greatest challenge was that McCain came out of nowhere to be his biggest opponent. Even then, his team pulled out the old Lee Atwater playbook and went into South Carolina intent on burying McCain for once and for all. It worked. No idiot could have pulled that off.
The biggest lesson W learned from studying Reagan, his father, and all the unsuccessful Republican suitors over the last 20 years was that you needed to sound like Reagan. Once again I cannot find the quote yet, but in a Time magazine interview of Bush Sr in the mid 90s Bush Sr lamented that Reagan raised specific taxes several times and no one screamed, yet Bush Sr only did it once and all the conservatives panicked. Admittedly Bush Sr's tax cut was a lot more reported on and sweeping in scope without any offsetting tax cuts, but his complaint is fair. W learned the lesson well. So if you hear him speak he sounds like Reagan. Tax cuts at all costs, for instance. And the war on terror was ready made for a Reagan Cold War Redux.
But Bush is still a Bush. A family with individuals who I have always felt LIVED the life of a conservative even if they failed to understand the actual policy implications. Family values matter to the Bushes. Discipline matters to the Bushes. Public service, charities, the nation, and family are more important than the selfish pursuit of ME. They also believe that government should be about doing things. And this is where they stop being conservatives and reveal their Rockefeller roots. They are good people who think that we can all just iron out our differences and work for the better of our nation. The most revealing fact is Bush's unwillingness to veto. Who can forget Reagan telling Congress "over my dead body" as he threatened a Presidential veto? This is where Bush is unwilling to sound like Reagan. He is willing to sign anything that Congress has hashed out. He may try to slow it down and sway votes on the hill, but he is unwilling to force a confrontation.
That wouldn't be a problem if the only things that got to his desk were good sound policy. But there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
George W, it is time that us conservatives send you a message. It is time that we start complaining and it is time for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. I don't really care who, I just want W to have to pull his playbook out again and figure out how to make me happy again.
Here is a link to an opinion piece by Veronique de Rugy of Cato. Long before Andrew Sullivan claimed to have been the first to say that Bush may not be all that conservative, long before George Will questioned it, and long before I started getting that sick spot in the pit of my stomach, Veronique pointed out that Bush was no conservative.
What is W? W is a politician. A pretty damn fine one at that. On top of it he is a political strategist who studies history. I am looking for the quote, but way back during the election of 2000 there was a story that pointed out that when Bush Sr was running for office W was very involved in the day to day political campaign operations. In fact, he was the guy who would go to the bar with the press corps after a long day on the campaign trail--presumably he drank 7-up. It was obvious to the reporters that he had a great handle on what was going on. Again, what I have just said is unsubstantiated until I can find the quote--readers?
But, what I can assess is his track record. Ever since I became aware of George W Bush I contended that he was smart. My reason for believing this was his clear election strategy. W looked at each of the errors of the previous candidates for President at least as far back as Reagan/Carter and made sure his strategy would avoid previous pitfalls. To use a saying usually applied to the military: he fought all the previous elections. Every failure by the Bush strategy team has always been in areas that they could not have anticipated--brand new ground. In fact, I am convinced this is why the smart liberals are so afraid of Bush--they assume that he will not make the mistakes of the father on things like Supreme Court nominations. Back to the election.
W’s strategy for winning momentum in the primaries was clearly aimed at Steve Forbes. Forbes had really been the greatest problem for Bob Dole in the Republican primaries in 1996. It was a safe assumption he would return. Forbes was a darling to economic conservatives, but most of us realized he was a nerd that could never win. When W came along and made tax cuts his biggest campaign issue Forbes was dead. Furthermore, W made sure he had a sound campaign organization in the early states that Forbes had done well in. The next thing Bush did was most clever. After Dole had been through a bruising primary he was out of money and limited by public campaign finance spending limits that applied because he had accepted public funds. This hurt him in the months after the primaries were settled but before the Republican convention. He could not spend. Meanwhile, Clinton and the DNC coordinated a series of ads that positioned Dole at a time when Dole could not respond. George W Bush took a gamble that if he could make it to the end he needed to have the flexibility to spend money to respond if and when the DNC tried this tactic again. Back to my point, the thing that caused W the greatest challenge was that McCain came out of nowhere to be his biggest opponent. Even then, his team pulled out the old Lee Atwater playbook and went into South Carolina intent on burying McCain for once and for all. It worked. No idiot could have pulled that off.
The biggest lesson W learned from studying Reagan, his father, and all the unsuccessful Republican suitors over the last 20 years was that you needed to sound like Reagan. Once again I cannot find the quote yet, but in a Time magazine interview of Bush Sr in the mid 90s Bush Sr lamented that Reagan raised specific taxes several times and no one screamed, yet Bush Sr only did it once and all the conservatives panicked. Admittedly Bush Sr's tax cut was a lot more reported on and sweeping in scope without any offsetting tax cuts, but his complaint is fair. W learned the lesson well. So if you hear him speak he sounds like Reagan. Tax cuts at all costs, for instance. And the war on terror was ready made for a Reagan Cold War Redux.
But Bush is still a Bush. A family with individuals who I have always felt LIVED the life of a conservative even if they failed to understand the actual policy implications. Family values matter to the Bushes. Discipline matters to the Bushes. Public service, charities, the nation, and family are more important than the selfish pursuit of ME. They also believe that government should be about doing things. And this is where they stop being conservatives and reveal their Rockefeller roots. They are good people who think that we can all just iron out our differences and work for the better of our nation. The most revealing fact is Bush's unwillingness to veto. Who can forget Reagan telling Congress "over my dead body" as he threatened a Presidential veto? This is where Bush is unwilling to sound like Reagan. He is willing to sign anything that Congress has hashed out. He may try to slow it down and sway votes on the hill, but he is unwilling to force a confrontation.
That wouldn't be a problem if the only things that got to his desk were good sound policy. But there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
George W, it is time that us conservatives send you a message. It is time that we start complaining and it is time for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. I don't really care who, I just want W to have to pull his playbook out again and figure out how to make me happy again.
Jul 24, 2003
Bush's Questionable Conservatism
Andrew Sullivan thinks he discovered it first. But he is not the first. For instance, I have pointed it out here, here, and here as early as June. And others have pointed it out for example here as early as March of this year.
Without a doubt there is good evidence that Bush is not a real conservative in terms of policy. He says the right things and he lives the right way, but too often in the interest of civility and eliminating democratic election issues he is willing to negotiate away. At the end of the day the only issues he has trully been firm on are tax cuts and the way in which he has pursued the war on terror. He is unwilling to fight the battles of the culture war and he is unwilling to cut spending. He is not a true believer in supply side economics, he is unwilling to stand against affirmative action, and he seems particularly silent on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Mr Bush what are you thinking?
Andrew Sullivan thinks he discovered it first. But he is not the first. For instance, I have pointed it out here, here, and here as early as June. And others have pointed it out for example here as early as March of this year.
Without a doubt there is good evidence that Bush is not a real conservative in terms of policy. He says the right things and he lives the right way, but too often in the interest of civility and eliminating democratic election issues he is willing to negotiate away. At the end of the day the only issues he has trully been firm on are tax cuts and the way in which he has pursued the war on terror. He is unwilling to fight the battles of the culture war and he is unwilling to cut spending. He is not a true believer in supply side economics, he is unwilling to stand against affirmative action, and he seems particularly silent on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Mr Bush what are you thinking?
Rumsfeld and Bremer
Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer held a press conference at the Pentagon today. CNN was good enough to carry it live. I am as yet unable to find a transcript, but there should be one available here by tomorrow. I recommend that informed people read the transcript. The press is looking for details for the stories they think are hot, and so far most stories are ignoring some of the more interesting things mentioned.
For example, Paul Bremer pointed out that the last few weeks have been very successful for the people of Iraq--a new currency has been created and an independent board has been organized to manage the currency to name one item. Mr Bremer continually referred reporters to the governing council for future announcements on critical issues, stated that there are timelines and goals, and never once demonstrated an inability to work with Rumsfeld. In fact, until today I had reserved judgement about Bremer. Even I was fooled by the media filter. Not that the media has been critical of Bremer, but rather that they have not been willing to give him the correct amount of attention. Bremer is a great man, there is a plan which is on track, and he and Rumsfeld looked very comfortable with each other. But that is not the story you will hear from the press conference.
Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer held a press conference at the Pentagon today. CNN was good enough to carry it live. I am as yet unable to find a transcript, but there should be one available here by tomorrow. I recommend that informed people read the transcript. The press is looking for details for the stories they think are hot, and so far most stories are ignoring some of the more interesting things mentioned.
For example, Paul Bremer pointed out that the last few weeks have been very successful for the people of Iraq--a new currency has been created and an independent board has been organized to manage the currency to name one item. Mr Bremer continually referred reporters to the governing council for future announcements on critical issues, stated that there are timelines and goals, and never once demonstrated an inability to work with Rumsfeld. In fact, until today I had reserved judgement about Bremer. Even I was fooled by the media filter. Not that the media has been critical of Bremer, but rather that they have not been willing to give him the correct amount of attention. Bremer is a great man, there is a plan which is on track, and he and Rumsfeld looked very comfortable with each other. But that is not the story you will hear from the press conference.
Uday and Qusay
Dead. I guess it is always in bad taste to celebrate the death of a person, but I just can't seem to keep myself from smiling. These men were thugs and I am not sure that anyone sensible will mourn their death.
Generally I am critical of the press. Mostly because I think there are a lot of dumb reporters. I don't mean that they are not talented. There is a big difference. Even news people I like demonstrate on occasion that they are clearly news people because they present themselves well (TV types) or write coherently (print type), not because they are smart enough to get the bigger issues in play. What does this have to do with Uday and Qusay? For the most part I think the media has gotten this right. They have made a big deal of the story. There is little need for bloggers like me to wonder why they are downplaying the story.
Why is it such a big deal? Because so much of war is about perception--at least for Americans. The story is that we really can catch and find hidden things. These henchmen had not left the country but were sitting right there under our noses. It took time and a reward offer, but we found them. No countries were willing to take them. And the most interesting aspect? There were not very many people guarding them. It should give us hope that we will find other things that are hidden. It should make it clear that we do have good intelligence in many situations. We thought they were there and we acted on it.
Now let us hope that we can catch the other two thugs out there: Saddam and Osama.
Dead. I guess it is always in bad taste to celebrate the death of a person, but I just can't seem to keep myself from smiling. These men were thugs and I am not sure that anyone sensible will mourn their death.
Generally I am critical of the press. Mostly because I think there are a lot of dumb reporters. I don't mean that they are not talented. There is a big difference. Even news people I like demonstrate on occasion that they are clearly news people because they present themselves well (TV types) or write coherently (print type), not because they are smart enough to get the bigger issues in play. What does this have to do with Uday and Qusay? For the most part I think the media has gotten this right. They have made a big deal of the story. There is little need for bloggers like me to wonder why they are downplaying the story.
Why is it such a big deal? Because so much of war is about perception--at least for Americans. The story is that we really can catch and find hidden things. These henchmen had not left the country but were sitting right there under our noses. It took time and a reward offer, but we found them. No countries were willing to take them. And the most interesting aspect? There were not very many people guarding them. It should give us hope that we will find other things that are hidden. It should make it clear that we do have good intelligence in many situations. We thought they were there and we acted on it.
Now let us hope that we can catch the other two thugs out there: Saddam and Osama.
Jul 23, 2003
Updates
I know it is not used by many readers, but I do maintain an index of articles by topic. I essentially link to my larger comments and ignore all the little comments. This way I can give you a way to find everything significant I have had to say about Paul Krugman for instance. I update the index about once a month and last night was the time for that. Please find it here. I also maintain a link to it in the left margin.
By the way, I have also added a Blog Roll. I really have only one qualification for addition to my Blog Roll: I have felt like going to the website at least once and there is current content. To be fair there are some blogs that I enjoyed more than others. And there are even blogs whose content I do not always agree with. But then again that is one of the things that makes the exchange of ideas on the internet so exciting. You can find the Blog Roll in the left hand margin right after the Reading section.
I know it is not used by many readers, but I do maintain an index of articles by topic. I essentially link to my larger comments and ignore all the little comments. This way I can give you a way to find everything significant I have had to say about Paul Krugman for instance. I update the index about once a month and last night was the time for that. Please find it here. I also maintain a link to it in the left margin.
By the way, I have also added a Blog Roll. I really have only one qualification for addition to my Blog Roll: I have felt like going to the website at least once and there is current content. To be fair there are some blogs that I enjoyed more than others. And there are even blogs whose content I do not always agree with. But then again that is one of the things that makes the exchange of ideas on the internet so exciting. You can find the Blog Roll in the left hand margin right after the Reading section.
Jul 22, 2003
Time Magazine and Joe Klein
Check this out.
Liberals just don't get George W Bush. They don't even get Clint Eastwood.
Joe Klein says that Bush should have just said: "Yep. My fault. Some hard-working guy at the National Security Council got a little overenthusiastic and stuck in that sentence. I didn't take it out. Won't do that again." Forget for now that Bush did get out in front of the issue and say this: "But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. " (here) and had his press people say this: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." (here). Forget that Joe Klein could have done some research and represented all the facts a little more honestly (it only took me 5 minutes).
The strategy that Klein proposes is a defensive strategy that would fail. It DID fail. The press simply became more interested. Funny thing once Bush got some backbone from having Tony Blair at his side the story changed and now appears to be dieing. It has no traction. The British stand by their intelligence, the CIA just wanted to hedge since they couldn't confirm it, the vote for war came long BEFORE Bush made the State of the Union speech, and the veracity of the uranium purchase claim was debated before we ever went to war. To bring it up again is simply politics. It is meant to do one thing: call into question whether Bush has good sound judgment.
Which is really Joe Klein's point. And regardless of whether the President gave a mea culpa or a Clint Eastwood answer (which by the way was what he really did, Clint would not apologize, but simply state the bigger issue of good and bad as Bush did), Joe Klein and his friends at Time would still think he had bad judgment. The answer that Bush finally gave at the press conference with Tony Blair was the correct answer: "I take the responsibility for making the decision...to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein...” At the end of the day, Saddam was a threat. Intelligence may not have been perfect in all cases, but 20 years of history has clearly shown that Saddam was a bad guy who clearly opposed the interests of the free world, oppressed his people, and in both cases was seeking the means of WMD to pursue these purposes.
Joe give me a break!
Check this out.
Liberals just don't get George W Bush. They don't even get Clint Eastwood.
Joe Klein says that Bush should have just said: "Yep. My fault. Some hard-working guy at the National Security Council got a little overenthusiastic and stuck in that sentence. I didn't take it out. Won't do that again." Forget for now that Bush did get out in front of the issue and say this: "But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. " (here) and had his press people say this: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." (here). Forget that Joe Klein could have done some research and represented all the facts a little more honestly (it only took me 5 minutes).
The strategy that Klein proposes is a defensive strategy that would fail. It DID fail. The press simply became more interested. Funny thing once Bush got some backbone from having Tony Blair at his side the story changed and now appears to be dieing. It has no traction. The British stand by their intelligence, the CIA just wanted to hedge since they couldn't confirm it, the vote for war came long BEFORE Bush made the State of the Union speech, and the veracity of the uranium purchase claim was debated before we ever went to war. To bring it up again is simply politics. It is meant to do one thing: call into question whether Bush has good sound judgment.
Which is really Joe Klein's point. And regardless of whether the President gave a mea culpa or a Clint Eastwood answer (which by the way was what he really did, Clint would not apologize, but simply state the bigger issue of good and bad as Bush did), Joe Klein and his friends at Time would still think he had bad judgment. The answer that Bush finally gave at the press conference with Tony Blair was the correct answer: "I take the responsibility for making the decision...to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein...” At the end of the day, Saddam was a threat. Intelligence may not have been perfect in all cases, but 20 years of history has clearly shown that Saddam was a bad guy who clearly opposed the interests of the free world, oppressed his people, and in both cases was seeking the means of WMD to pursue these purposes.
Joe give me a break!
Twin Towers Update
Every so often my writing leaves something to be desired. Yesterday I had a post like that. I actually appreciate a reader who called me on this.
I hope at some point to give my general definition of conservatism. Why? Because I feel attracted to the conservative view on almost every issue. Yet I wonder if there is a simple definition that makes it possible to predict the conservative view point. I have some notes jotted down and intend to get to publishing them someday when I have ample time.
Meanwhile I see people who should be, or claim to be, conservative who really favor a libertarian viewpoint. I think it is a shame. On the one hand they are people attracted to a much more simply defined ideal (libertarianism), and on the other hand they are willing to abandon tradition (misguided conservatives).
The twin towers, or pillars, of conservatism seem to be economic freedom and defense of traditional culture. What is the relationship? Simply that economic freedom functions best when people are honest and the only way to insure that honesty is by respecting the institutions of traditional culture. On the one hand libertarians seem unable to grasp this relationship, and on the other some conservatives seem willing to capitulate and abandon culture since they don't know how to defend it.
An example of where this leads us is seen in the debate on gay marriage. And therefore my rant yesterday took the drivers seat on a post initially meant to demonstrate the error of abandoning traditional culture.
Every so often my writing leaves something to be desired. Yesterday I had a post like that. I actually appreciate a reader who called me on this.
I hope at some point to give my general definition of conservatism. Why? Because I feel attracted to the conservative view on almost every issue. Yet I wonder if there is a simple definition that makes it possible to predict the conservative view point. I have some notes jotted down and intend to get to publishing them someday when I have ample time.
Meanwhile I see people who should be, or claim to be, conservative who really favor a libertarian viewpoint. I think it is a shame. On the one hand they are people attracted to a much more simply defined ideal (libertarianism), and on the other hand they are willing to abandon tradition (misguided conservatives).
The twin towers, or pillars, of conservatism seem to be economic freedom and defense of traditional culture. What is the relationship? Simply that economic freedom functions best when people are honest and the only way to insure that honesty is by respecting the institutions of traditional culture. On the one hand libertarians seem unable to grasp this relationship, and on the other some conservatives seem willing to capitulate and abandon culture since they don't know how to defend it.
An example of where this leads us is seen in the debate on gay marriage. And therefore my rant yesterday took the drivers seat on a post initially meant to demonstrate the error of abandoning traditional culture.
Jul 21, 2003
Twin Towers of Conservatism
What makes a Conservative not a Libertarian? Conservatives actually think that culture can say that certain behaviors are frowned upon. If that culture says that homosexuality is not a sufficient condition for marriage, then why should there be a change to the institution? To be fair, I think there are many people attracted to libertarianism for the economic reasons, which I agree with, and then feeling a need to be simplistically consistent refuse a role for culture in the laws of the land. They hope that cultural institutions will independently encourage a good culture. What is the mistake of this? If there were only conservatives and libertarians in the world they would be safe in this assumption. However, the problem is that there are liberals.
For instance, Andrew Sullivan gleefully quotes Dick Cheney's comments from the 2000 VP debates:
"[P]eople should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into... [Marriage] is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
Where Sullivan is mistaken is that he forgets to tell us that Cheney has a lesbian daughter and that the question on gay marriage was meant to trap him. He evaded the question by using the Bush spin also applied to the Confederate flag in South Carolina: 'these are state questions that have no bearing on the office I seek'. The proof that Lieberman was a bad candidate was that he should have take Cheney to task for this evasive answer. Here is the problem. Do you think that Cheney meant he was in favor of gay marriage? No, he just didn't want to make that the focus of his candidacy. If he were Governor of Wyoming would he be in favor? The answer is no. He hoped that gay marriage could be contained at the state level since there was no indication that any states at the time had the political will to sanction gay marriage. He gave an evasive answer in hopes he would never have to deal with the question. But, what is the reality? If one state legalizes it then all assumptions go out the door. Not because the original premise is wrong, but because of liberals. You see I too have no real problem if New York and California want to do the trendy thing and let gays marry--as long as I don't live there. But when in California I did my part to support the ballot proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Regardless of our efforts the liberals march on in the state. Is Andrew Sullivan supportive of California voters for doing this? In spite of the proposition I believed at the time that liberal Democrats would find ways to circumvent the law. At the time I left California Governor Davis was expressing a desire to avoid the spirit of the law. So, when some state finally legalizes gay marriage what will the liberal response be? Will they say: thank goodness for federalism, all our gay friends can now move to Massachusetts? I doubt it. They will then insist that gay "rights" be extended to all people in all states. Because after all, when heterosexuals travel to other states they are respected for their marriage contract from another state, why should gay people be second class citizens?
What is my point? If liberals respected federalism then Cheney is right. Libertarians are right. If liberals respected a limited role for the Federal government then libertarians are also right. But liberals, starting in the Sixties, began pushing their utopic vision on the country. The way the laws seem to work, they are allowed to foist their religion on my children using my tax dollars--they don't call it a religion, but I do. I am not a conservative that wants to force prayer in school, or other activist concepts. I am just one who thinks we need to stop trying to change everything that has existed for many years just because the trendiest group of our day doesn't like it. As I have said before, marriage was supported by the state to tax and to protect children, not to grant some "right".
Now, Andrew Sullivan makes another comment about how it is crazy to defend marriage as being for the protection of children (yet he doesn’t have the courage to recognize sources of that view with a link). His main argument? "Tell that to Pat Buchanan, who has no kids, or to the hundreds of thousands of childless couples who consider themselves rightly married." Andrew is once again ignoring the need to report all the details. Did we write the law yesterday to protect children? No. Sure, today I would guess technology is good enough that we could screen all couples and ensure that marriage was only required for, and using Andrew's logic--only available to, those who were genetically capable of procreation. But these tests were not available when marriage became an institution. Let's go a step further; marriage was really a protection for women and their parents from the weak position a woman might find herself in if she became pregnant. Parents could teach chastity in hopes of avoiding the risk of illegitimate children without a man willing to "pay the bills". Marriage is a contract that protects the weak. How is there anyone "weak" in a homosexual relationship? I don't buy it. If technology is really great, what it is then is an argument for women to check fertility first before exercising the marriage option. Not for allowing non-traditional marriage. Besides, how many people do you know who have a fertility check before marriage? Come on Andrew get serious!
What makes a Conservative not a Libertarian? Conservatives actually think that culture can say that certain behaviors are frowned upon. If that culture says that homosexuality is not a sufficient condition for marriage, then why should there be a change to the institution? To be fair, I think there are many people attracted to libertarianism for the economic reasons, which I agree with, and then feeling a need to be simplistically consistent refuse a role for culture in the laws of the land. They hope that cultural institutions will independently encourage a good culture. What is the mistake of this? If there were only conservatives and libertarians in the world they would be safe in this assumption. However, the problem is that there are liberals.
For instance, Andrew Sullivan gleefully quotes Dick Cheney's comments from the 2000 VP debates:
"[P]eople should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into... [Marriage] is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
Where Sullivan is mistaken is that he forgets to tell us that Cheney has a lesbian daughter and that the question on gay marriage was meant to trap him. He evaded the question by using the Bush spin also applied to the Confederate flag in South Carolina: 'these are state questions that have no bearing on the office I seek'. The proof that Lieberman was a bad candidate was that he should have take Cheney to task for this evasive answer. Here is the problem. Do you think that Cheney meant he was in favor of gay marriage? No, he just didn't want to make that the focus of his candidacy. If he were Governor of Wyoming would he be in favor? The answer is no. He hoped that gay marriage could be contained at the state level since there was no indication that any states at the time had the political will to sanction gay marriage. He gave an evasive answer in hopes he would never have to deal with the question. But, what is the reality? If one state legalizes it then all assumptions go out the door. Not because the original premise is wrong, but because of liberals. You see I too have no real problem if New York and California want to do the trendy thing and let gays marry--as long as I don't live there. But when in California I did my part to support the ballot proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Regardless of our efforts the liberals march on in the state. Is Andrew Sullivan supportive of California voters for doing this? In spite of the proposition I believed at the time that liberal Democrats would find ways to circumvent the law. At the time I left California Governor Davis was expressing a desire to avoid the spirit of the law. So, when some state finally legalizes gay marriage what will the liberal response be? Will they say: thank goodness for federalism, all our gay friends can now move to Massachusetts? I doubt it. They will then insist that gay "rights" be extended to all people in all states. Because after all, when heterosexuals travel to other states they are respected for their marriage contract from another state, why should gay people be second class citizens?
What is my point? If liberals respected federalism then Cheney is right. Libertarians are right. If liberals respected a limited role for the Federal government then libertarians are also right. But liberals, starting in the Sixties, began pushing their utopic vision on the country. The way the laws seem to work, they are allowed to foist their religion on my children using my tax dollars--they don't call it a religion, but I do. I am not a conservative that wants to force prayer in school, or other activist concepts. I am just one who thinks we need to stop trying to change everything that has existed for many years just because the trendiest group of our day doesn't like it. As I have said before, marriage was supported by the state to tax and to protect children, not to grant some "right".
Now, Andrew Sullivan makes another comment about how it is crazy to defend marriage as being for the protection of children (yet he doesn’t have the courage to recognize sources of that view with a link). His main argument? "Tell that to Pat Buchanan, who has no kids, or to the hundreds of thousands of childless couples who consider themselves rightly married." Andrew is once again ignoring the need to report all the details. Did we write the law yesterday to protect children? No. Sure, today I would guess technology is good enough that we could screen all couples and ensure that marriage was only required for, and using Andrew's logic--only available to, those who were genetically capable of procreation. But these tests were not available when marriage became an institution. Let's go a step further; marriage was really a protection for women and their parents from the weak position a woman might find herself in if she became pregnant. Parents could teach chastity in hopes of avoiding the risk of illegitimate children without a man willing to "pay the bills". Marriage is a contract that protects the weak. How is there anyone "weak" in a homosexual relationship? I don't buy it. If technology is really great, what it is then is an argument for women to check fertility first before exercising the marriage option. Not for allowing non-traditional marriage. Besides, how many people do you know who have a fertility check before marriage? Come on Andrew get serious!
Kobe Bryant
I like stories like this since it allows me to make some points about views I generally have. To begin with I am a lifetime LA Lakers fan. And I am a fan of Kobe. Not because he is supposed to be a role model, but because he is a spectacular athlete. Now, having said that, just as I said with Bill Bennett and Sammy Sosa, Kobe should have known better! Is he really so dumb that he thinks that women, even consensual women, want to have sex with him in some hotel and have no intention of taking advantage of him? Even if we believe his story about it being consensual, he is wrong that his only mistake was adultery. His other mistake was STUPIDITY! Where does that come from? I am not sure. NBA stars are notorious for sex with different women in every city they travel to. Some are even infamous for the number of children they have sired. There is also no doubt where Magic Johnson picked up HIV. Usually these things are settled in civil courts or quietly as the woman seeks money. But, now a new angle is being tried--that is if you believe Kobe. I don't. Because even if consensual and she decided to play the money game it all could have stayed quiet, he didn't have to let it get out of hand. What is more likely is that he tried to end the relationship, she threatened to go public, and he got mad. In which case there are all kinds of things that could have gone bad. Big shots like Kobe need to learn that they are the least immune to bad publicity. Kobe, you better get on the phone with her and work a deal if you want to continue playing basketball. And other stars, get your act together--people are watching.
I like stories like this since it allows me to make some points about views I generally have. To begin with I am a lifetime LA Lakers fan. And I am a fan of Kobe. Not because he is supposed to be a role model, but because he is a spectacular athlete. Now, having said that, just as I said with Bill Bennett and Sammy Sosa, Kobe should have known better! Is he really so dumb that he thinks that women, even consensual women, want to have sex with him in some hotel and have no intention of taking advantage of him? Even if we believe his story about it being consensual, he is wrong that his only mistake was adultery. His other mistake was STUPIDITY! Where does that come from? I am not sure. NBA stars are notorious for sex with different women in every city they travel to. Some are even infamous for the number of children they have sired. There is also no doubt where Magic Johnson picked up HIV. Usually these things are settled in civil courts or quietly as the woman seeks money. But, now a new angle is being tried--that is if you believe Kobe. I don't. Because even if consensual and she decided to play the money game it all could have stayed quiet, he didn't have to let it get out of hand. What is more likely is that he tried to end the relationship, she threatened to go public, and he got mad. In which case there are all kinds of things that could have gone bad. Big shots like Kobe need to learn that they are the least immune to bad publicity. Kobe, you better get on the phone with her and work a deal if you want to continue playing basketball. And other stars, get your act together--people are watching.
Thanks!
A great big thank you to Don Luskin for linking to my blog concerning Paul Krugman. Don Luskin has done a fine job of tracking Paul Krugman's lies and I encourage him to continue the effort. At the end of the day the problem with Paul Krugman is that he is far too attracted to the bright lights of fame. He will say anything to be cool with the trendy liberals that he runs with.
A great big thank you to Don Luskin for linking to my blog concerning Paul Krugman. Don Luskin has done a fine job of tracking Paul Krugman's lies and I encourage him to continue the effort. At the end of the day the problem with Paul Krugman is that he is far too attracted to the bright lights of fame. He will say anything to be cool with the trendy liberals that he runs with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)