In Defense of the Republican Party and Partisanship

It’s become very in vogue among conservatives to beat up the Republican Party over the last couple of years. And many Republicans have deserved to be criticized for their liberal votes and policies. Medicare part D is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the last several years. There certainly have been some bad Republicans lately, both in policy and personal behavior. I believe that some have taken the easy way out by adopting a populist-yet-conservative philosophy. They say they don’t care about party, they just want people in office that listen to the people. They want politicians who believe in and understand the Constitution. They want politicians with “common sense.” They don’t care what party you’re in if you are a true conservative.
The problem with this is it doesn’t work that way. It might sound good. It might feel good, like you’re proclaiming your independence from any given party. You’re no partisan hack, you’re a free thinker! Or maybe you’re even a “libertarian.” You don’t vote for Libertarians and think they get carried away sometimes, but you like that they’re so individualistic they have absolutely no cooperation or cohesive strategy. Well, stop patting yourself on the back for a minute and think about this critically for a second. You don’t care what party someone’s in? I think you do. Have you ever once found a conservative Democrat? Can you think of one Democrat that you are glad you voted for or wanted to vote for? Have you ever seen a race in which the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican? Of course, the answer for any conservative to these questions would be no. Perhaps there’s an exception to this out there somewhere, but it would be an extremely rare exception. (Zell Miller, perhaps?) And it doesn’t pay to vote for third party candidates. Third party candidates are automatic losers. If a third party candidate actually wins election it is a candidate that is more liberal than the Republican. Libertarians have yet to win a national office. Furthermore, which would be more feasible: to elect a conservative Republican or a third party candidate? While all Republicans aren’t perfect, and there are some that are almost just as liberal as Democrats, following a rigidly idealist voting strategy is simply not helpful. A vote which is wasted on a third party candidate is not only one vote which a Republican should get, it is also an encouragement to the needless and harmful third party.
But before I go further, let me just point out how great some of our conservative Republicans are. You wouldn’t know it by listening to those “conservatives” who enjoy defaming everything Republican, but there are some great leaders in both the House and the Senate who stand for individual liberty, a strong national defense, real family values, and limited government. Leaders like Jim DeMint, John Thune, James Imhofe, and Jon Kyl in the Senate. True conservatives such as Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Jeff Miller, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan in the House. While none of these are perfect, they are all true conservatives, and they’re all Republicans. They could very well agree with those conservatives who express antipathy towards the Republican party on 100% of the issues. Aren’t the conservatives who demonize the Republican party attacking real conservatives like these? I would argue yes. By turning “Republican” into some dirty word, they are besmirching all Republicans. They are throwing the  baby out with the bath water in some delusional and self serving attempt at “objectivity” or ”fairness.”
The question is, what can an average person do to help more conservatives elected, how can we as individuals affect national politics in a way that favors individual liberty? The answer is not to waste a vote on a meaningless loser. The answer is to get involved at the local level first. Get involved in your local Republican party. Read the Republican platform. You can find it right here: http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. I dare you to find something you disagree with in it. More importantly, get involved in the primary process. Inform yourself on the primary candidates, find the best conservative leader and advocate for him. I realize this isn’t easy. It takes work to actually make an impact in politics. But just like those who don’t vote shouldn’t complain about our politicians, those who don’t vote in the Republican primary shouldn’t complain about the Republican Party. Unless you’re a Democrat.
Finally, let me say that there is certainly more to life than politics. This is, as Jefferson might say, self evident. But politics does require a great deal of passion and knowledge from those who would wish to actually serve their country in a seemingly self-serving profession. Indeed, our founding fathers truly saw themselves and office holders as public servants. For this reason they gave office holders a meager salary. Higher office was an honor bestowed, not a duly chosen position of power. Great conservatives tend to not make a career out of politics, though it could be argued that they could better serve their country if they remained in the system. But conservatives don’t treasure the power. They don’t tolerate the types of strain that public life puts on their families. They have interests outside of politics and they realize there is more to life. But it is commitment to those individual, Judeo-Christian principles which animates a true conservative. A passion for politics does not strip someone of his social or cultural ideals, nor does it require that he lose his moral and religious foundation. Rather, true men of integrity recognize that they are inseparable. An exposition of religious principles naturally relates to certain corresponding political philosophies and vice versa. These worldviews are what separates left from right, pagan from orthodoxy.

The Meaning of Eternal Vigilance

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active.  The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran

If July 4th is to have any meaningful significance beyond a historic day in the 18th century– if there is really any cause for celebration, if the founding of this nation holds any transcendence– then it is up to us, the benefactors of the greatest civil inheritance history has ever known to both understand and guard it. This inheritance is the greatest level of personal liberty that man has known under human rule. And the product of this restrained liberty has been the greatest level of prosperity in history. True gratitude for this great legacy requires a jealous defense of the individual freedom which our founding fathers secured for us through the American Revolution.
But the prosperity which we have the priviledge to enjoy today is jeopardized by our collective ignorance and apathy. While it is certainly important to recognize the sacrifices that our troops are making every day and have made in the wars of the past, it is impossible to truly appreciate their sacrifice without fully recognizing the exceptional situation which we have today. We are indeed the freest nation in the world because we have a constitution unlike any other in the world, written by mortal men who truly believed that God’s hand sustained and enabled them to ”secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posterity.  
Eternal vigilance requires that we protect this Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, just as soldiers are required to pledge.  The most basic way to do this is to love and guard our rights which the Constitution guarantees. Obviously, the space and time constraints on me as a writer do not allow me to thoroughly enumerate and expound upon these rights. But there are fundamental rights that the writers of the Constitution identified from which all other rights are derived. This was what was commonly called natural (meaning God-given) law, summed up in the Declaration of Independence as ”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but are more commonly referred to as life, liberty and property.
Each of these fundamental rights is continually under attack, more often by domestic than foreign enemies. Our duty, then, is to understand what these rights mean, how they are being attacked, and do whatever we can to defend them. This requires an active involvement in the cause of liberty. If not in direct involvement, at least in indirect or simple ways, like supporting those who protect our freedoms both in the foreign battlefield as well the ideological battlefield, such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute or other great institutions. I daresay, however, that without political involvement, particularly at the grass roots level, our Constitution will no longer be relevant to political discussion. Some day, we will have so strayed from the Constitution and our founding father’s original intent, that only a violent overthrow of the government would liberate us. We cannot afford apathy anymore. We must not remain blind to the intrusions on our liberties. While we are still empowered to do something, we must take action.

Rejecting Populism

Dictionary.com describes populism as follows: 1.the political philosophy of the People’s party 2.(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies. 3.(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts.  Actually explaining the concept of populism is more complicated. The simplest way for me to explain it is that populism is the victimhood of the common man. Typical populist gripes are about how someone makes too much money (very popular are professional athletes and CEOs) and usually include defeatist attitudes and the general idea of a conspiracy or collusion among the powerful and wealthy against “us.”
In short, populism is an appealing but dangerously insidious force that politicians use in the most cynical ways in order to control people. It takes an educated and critical thinker to resist the siren’s song of populism, but resist we must. We must reject deifying “the common man” or “average joe” as politicians so often like to do. It is a pernicious self-delusion appealing to a false idealization. Populism is the politics of the narcissist. It fails to look the at country, particularly the ever-so-divine middle class with a critical eye. Populism is ugly, self serving and self destructive.
Even conservatives get it wrong, in so many ways about populism. There are so many maxims, myths, and general pie in the sky ideas that are used in common political talk that are based in populist myths, it would take dozens of blogs to debunk them all. Good thing I don’t have many blog ideas right now. I guess this is the start of another series of blogs. Here are just a few examples of populist folklore which politicians run to whenever they are running for office or see their poll numbers tanking: energy independence, outsourcing, price gouging, collusion among businesses, windfall profits, conspiracy theories, golden parachutes, the ridiculously populist and factually incorrect song “shutting detroit down” (which totally drives me nuts), the precautionary principle, global climate change, the two party system has to go, and reality tv. Okay, so I threw in reality tv there at the end, which isn’t really an issue but is totally populist, which is probably why I despise it so much.
In summation, populism is the result of lazy thinking. There, I said it. Now that I called you stupid, since you probably believe in a lot or all of those things you’ll probably hate me. But that’s the risk of going against populist myth. People have already had their minds made up for them about these things because they have failed to look at these issues critically. Instead, they have followed the path of least resistance and are floating downstream like so many dead fish. Please take some time with me, if you’ve read this far and try to look at these issues objectively. Instead of envying the rich, realize that many, if not most of these people are poorer than you in many ways and really have sad existences. This website chronicles some of the really sad stories of those “lucky” lottery winners: http://www.lottoreport.com/sadbuttrue.htm Make it a practice every day like Michael Medved does, to say “I am not a victim!” And understand that returning to a production economy, to return low paying jobs which have been shipped overseas is no way to improve an economy. Realize that in a global economy, “energy independence” isn’t a viable or even attractive goal. And this isn’t a nation of “haves” and “have nots.” We are not stuck in one particular class all our lives and we can always better ourselves financially and otherwise, so long as we live in a free country.
The more I write about this, the more important I think this topic is. It really is something that needs to be heard. I don’t care about being offensive as long as I speak the truth as best I know it. But voicing these opinions in polite conversation probably would result in bitter arguments, that is why I am writing this blog without any provocation. There is no specific impetus for this blog, only my continual displeasure with both friends and family and nearly everyone I ever attempt to talk politics with on these issues. My purpose is not to alienate, but inform. My desire is to put an end to the tactful sidestepping of populist issues. I am no longer willing to just play devil’s advocate to populist screeds. It is time to demolish these myths and insist on logical arguments. Because populism never passes a logical analysis.

The Onslaught of Fascism

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ” Gerald Ford
It’s not even coming slowly any more. No, Barack Obama and his ever willing congress is attacking liberty at every turn. And it’s easy to spot when you know where to look, as it’s not hidden, the fascism is merely camoflaged. It’s simply called government spending. Each dollar that government spends beyond the most basic of national defense and police, the court system, etc. is a dollar spent in the enslavement of the American people. When someone spends more time working to pay taxes than they do for themselves are they actually free? Every single action of this administration has been to one dangerous end: more power for government. This is why instead of cutting taxes to “stimulate the economy”–which is exactly what tax cuts would do– we are spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have. It is a gamble which might make the Barack Obama Presidency significantly more infamous in the future than it has been historic thus far. How any supporter of Barack Obama can justify such massive spending when he hasn’t even begun bankrupting the country with nationalized healthcare and cap amd trade–aka economic suicide– is beyond me.
The result of these radical changes, if they are all implemented, particularly if the economy doesn’t begin picking up soon–I don’t know what will happen, I can’t conceive it, but it will signify the victory of fascism. This is why I don’t think it will happen. The American people will rise up. Obama is a shrewd politician and I don’t think anyone is ready for this radical change. The 2010 election seems so far away, but the Democrats’ overreaching will backfire. Reality is starting to kick in regarding Obama’s naive pledge to close Gitmo.
There’s so much to say here, so many things to write about, it’s very frustrating. I think my recent case of writer’s block is not for a lack of things to say or issues to talk about. To the contrary, there’s too much for my addled mind to focus on just one issue at a time. But it can all be boiled down to a simple idea: Barack Obama and liberals in general believe that they know better than individuals and corporations at running their lives and companies. The only logical solution for this new aristocracy is to take over for us all. And how will they accomplish this? By simply growing government. Every new regulation, every new tax, every new program, every extra-constitutional “czar” added to the President’s staff, every bailout, every smoking ban, every little annoyance, every nonsensical resolution, every government take over, every new welfare program–these are the building blocks of fascism, the links of the chains that enslave each and everyone of us. Please don’t misunderstand me; government is entirely necessary and is even capable of doing good. But it does so by protecting personal freedom. Once the government seeks to do good for individuals, once it steps outside reactive law enforcement and tries to protect people from themselves or bestow wealth to the poor, it begins to take away those freedoms it was supposed to protect.

A dispassionate look at the economy

“Men of intemperate minds never can be free: their passions form their fetters.” –Edmund Burke

“We are always paid for our suspicion by finding what we suspect.” — Henry David Thoureau

There’s a story I am fond of telling, the origin of which is forever lost between synapses destined never to fire again. A professor, in an experiment, assigns to two different groups of students the same project. Go out and survey a certain number of people. The students were told to ask one question, with only a yes or no answer. One group was told that the average or expected results would be 60% yes and 40% no. The other group was told to expect 40% yes and 60% no. The groups came back, and both groups got what they were told to expect. Expectation and perception are two very big shapers of what we commonly call “reality” or “life.” Unfortunately, the liberal media often actively shapes our perceptions in the most imperceptible ways. And it is almost never for the good.
With regard to the economy, it is almost exclusively destructive. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets, We’re drowning here, and they’re describing the water. But it is more like a constant drumbeat of a sort of fatalistic, mololithic press that cries “Recession! Recession!” with the wince of a masochist, barely able to hold back a giant grin. For good news is truly no news these days. Consider the inane and utterly unnewsworthy coverage of gas prices on a weekly basis when our economy was actually growing. Now that gas prices have fallen precipitously, where is the coverage? Where is the silver lining that comes with this recession? I’ll give you a hint: you won’t ever hear of one on ABC or CBS or NBC. You won’t find stories about the natural business cycle in your local, state or national newspaper. No one will ever actually admit that the government can’t prevent, fix, or shorten a recession. Because that doesn’t fit with their story. Its no wonder we’re in a recession. We’ve been talking ourselves into one for the last 3 years. This is why the consumer confidence index is such an important economic indicator. Consumer confidence is by definition a psychological factor– guided by perception as much as hard economic reality. The only fix for this economy is a vital combination of individual action and collective optimism. Individually, we must prepare ourselves for the worst but hope (in the Obama meaning) for the best. Collectively, we need to remember we still live in the greatest nation in the world and have the most economic opportunity of anyone. And focusing on the rising water will only hasten our demise.

Understanding the 2008 election

“He changes times and seasons; He sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.” Daniel 2:21 (NIV)

This is perhaps the most difficult blog for me to ever write. Not that these are exceptionally difficult times or anything melodramatic like that. But because I am both perplexed and conflicted in writing it. Perplexed because I don’t understand the why, and conflicted because I want to think better of my countrymen. But here I am, writing, trying to simplify the complicated while still trying to figure it out. This is what I seek to do in every one of my blogs: to connect the dots which so often seem to be scattered so haphazardly. I do this because it seems that truth is constantly obscured, and also because it allows me to understand things personally. That is, while I know what I believe and what I think instictively, writing enables me to put things in perspective.  There is something enlightening about writing. Writing about a given subject doesn’t expose my understanding of it, but rather enables my understanding. I hope I can do the same thing for those reading this.
First, let’s understand that the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is not by any means the sole concern of the 2008 election, though of the contests it might have been the most clear. More troubling, it seems to me is the number of “red states” which turned “blue” in the national election. Obviously, this had to happen in order for Obama to win, but the way it happened is quite disconcerting. North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia aren’t supposed to vote for a democrat, but they all did. Likewise, Elizabeth Dole wasn’t supposed to lose her senate seat in the (formerly?) conservative state of North Carolina. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader isn’t supposed to struggle to maintain his seat in conservative Kentucky. In Pennsylvania, the detestable Jack Murtha–who openly called his own constituents racists, then when confronted didn’t retract his comment, but instead changed his insult to rednecks–managed to keep his seat in Congress. Of course, this was not Murtha’s only repulsive comment in recent memory. Murtha infamously disgraced himself and discredited his military service by proclaiming that marines had killed innocent civilians in cold blood in the Iraqi city of Haditha. This, despite the fact that the investigation of the Haditha incident was still under investigation and Murtha hadn’t even read the report. But Murtha was an incumbent. The situation in Minnesota is almost as bad. The immently disgraceful one, Al Franken nearly won a US senate seat over the experienced, competent, independent and thoroughly likeable Norm Coleman. Franken isn’t even a good comedian, is an unsuccessful talk show host and a remarkably angry and meanspirited political commentator, and as cuddly as a porcupine. Yet Coleman barely won the election and it was so close there is a mandatory recount that will get started any month now. Granted, Dean Barkley entered the race and probably stole a few of Coleman’s votes, but the fact remains that Al Franken was only a couple hundred votes away from being Minnesota’s second radical left wing senator, possibly to the left of even Amy Klobuchar.
The examples of how liberal this election was are numerous and can be seen at nearly every level. The question is, why? Rather than impune motives, denegrate the intelligence, or question the patriotism of the electorate, I submit that to some extent this election was an indictment of our character. Specifically, this election exposed our growing love of convenience. Leisure has become our new national past time, one which we will legislate, if necessary. Why should we pay for and choose our own healthcare if the government can do it for us? Why should we have to work to pay off our school loans if the department of education can pay for it? Why should we have to pay attention to what we eat, when the FDA and legislators can just outlaw what’s bad for us? Why should we take responsibility for our family, when human services can handle it? We have spurned individual responsibility in favor of newly found “rights.” We have mistaken subjective fairness for objective justice and rejected reason in deference to emotion.
Barack Obama was wrong. His campaign slogan might have been “change we can believe in”, but it was nihilism–a belief in nothing at all– that won the day. This is not a declaration of defeat, nor an indictment of the United States as a whole. This is still the greatest country in the world, and we still love freedom more than anyone else. To lose faith in the American people is unthinkable, for it would mean surrendering to the same nihilism.

Liberal hero: the coward.

First, let me state here that I am going to use some very broad generalizations that probably don’t describe many or possibly most liberals. Instead, I am going to take liberal philosophies to their logical conclusions, but to do so I will probably overstate the beliefs of many liberals. But I digress. As Scott McClellan begins his opportunist book tour, (I’m sure it’s pure coincidence this book is coming out in an election year less than 6 months prior to the election) the liberals are discovering their love for this no count nobody in their non-judgemental hearts. Liberals love this stuff. This is how a liberal would write a book. A negative book about a very unpopular president just months before an election. Talk about cojones. This is what passes as political courage in this Brave New World. This is the sort of courage Bill Maher will certainly laud, which congressmen who relish every opportunity to grill oil company CEOs will certainly admire, and every aspiring suicide bomber can respect. Am I crossing the line? Perhaps. But believe this: liberals love a coward. This is the result of the belief in major liberal doctrines like relativism and pragmatism. Make no mistake, the reason liberals pander so much is not because deep down they’re cowards. The reason liberals act with cowardice is because deep down they have nothing which they hold to. When you embrace both relativism and pragmatism there really is nothing worth fighting for, so the liberal takes the easy road. This is why there are so many opportunists among the liberal elite. Scavenging is preferrable to the risk of unpopularity.

The Myth of Scarcity

Part of the great difference between a liberal and conservative world-view is the perception of scarcity. In the liberal world-view, scarcity is abundant. The paradigm of an informed and conscientious conservative has an abundance of abundance. The liberal will always see things as win-lose or lose-lose. A true conservative seeks win-win and rejects win-lose thinking. Liberals see problems, conservatives see opportunity. Liberals seek help from others, while conservatives look to help themselves. Certainly these are generalizations and generalizations always have their exceptions and both sides are acting and thinking outside of these paradigms but these are their ideals. A very vivid illustration of the scarcity paradigm was displayed by none other than Michelle Obama when she proclaimed that some people would have to give up “part of their pie” so we could have universal health care. It seems that while Barak Obama is going around the country trying to avoid (some might say ineptly) saying what he really thinks in order to maintain the mirage that he is a “uniter,” Michelle Obama has been imbibing on her personal bottle of truth serum. And the truth is in this case quite ugly. Hers is a most desolate and foreboding world-view. Hers is a worldwide poker game where no one adds any chips and there are no rebuys. There are only winners and losers, and much of that is determined by the number of chips they started out with. And the only way to progress in poker is to take chips from other players.

Everywhere you look the media is proclaiming the sky is falling and we will most definitely run out of the most essential elements for life and prosperity like water, food, oil and Chipotle burritos. There is something that obviously is appealing about these stories or there wouldn’t be so many of them. The reason behind these stories is less important than the fact that these crises rarely ever are of any consequence. But those in the media who proclaim these shortages luckily don’t ever have to give account for their dire predictions. As Dennis Prager would say, being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry.

Thankfully, life isn’t a poker game. The number of chips isn’t limited in any conventional sense, and it is economic freedom that ensures this. It is scarcity thinking that ironically creates (short term) scarcity. And giving things away like health care will always create scarcity because it will always make demand infinite. Saying that we won’t run out of things like water or oil or doctors doesn’t mean there is an infinite supply. It is simply a function of economics. As demand for anything increases, supply will increase, though not necessarily as fast or as much as everyone wishes.  The impetus for these stories, for this constant insistence that this society or world will end soon and abruptly is twofold: a distrust of the free market and a desire for a larger, stronger government. If we passed a law tomorrow that made gas $1 a gallon we would end up with a gas shortage in no time. Not because there isn’t enough oil, but because no one could afford to pump oil or process it into gasoline or distribute it to gas stations. If consumers don’t directly pay for their own healthcare, they will have an infinite demand for medical care. And people who can’t afford to fly overseas and pay cash for their healthcare will have to wait months just to be seen by a doctor. More importantly, the tax load will be extremely burdensome, particularly who those who are forced to give “more of their pie.” They just might decide to move their pie somewhere where it won’t all be taken from them.

 

The NFL draft, or: much ado about nothing

If there’s any proof that we as a society have waaay too much time on our hands it would be the absurdity of the NFL draft. Granted, as I am currently half heartedly watching the NFL draft I certainly fall in this category of people who have too much time on their hands. This is why I am very skeptical when I hear anyone say that they don’t have time to do this or that, usually something that has a priori benefits. Priorities are those things that we make time for. If something is of a high priority, we find time to do it, we lose sleep or drop lesser priority activities to make sure that we do it. My point is this: believe it or not people literally spend hours of their life watching and waiting for someone to step to a podium to say the name of someone they don’t know or will ever meet to watch them play a game they will never participate in. What a bizarre thing this is! Perhaps the most amazing thing is how seriously some people take this this whole process. Like the probable countless blogs on the NFL draft or the number of commentators on multiple networks willing to disect each and every one of the two hundred or so players that will be drafted to the extent of measuring the most meaningless minutia. Personally I would think it would be fascinating to hear someone analyze the diction and pronunciation that Roger Goodell uses when he announces each draft pick. I’m just an English nerd, but that would make for fascinating television if you ask me.

A note about my subtitle

My subtitle for my blog, “simplifying the complicated and complicating the simple” is simply my philosophy of common knowledge. Usually what is believed to be simple is vastly more complicated and vice versa. It takes a willingness to dig beyond surface knowledge to know this but it is almost invariably true. “Simple” things like the microscopic cell are unbelievably complex and things as complicated as global economics (at least the main concepts) can be understood in very simple terms. To clarify, the complex can be explained in generalizations but it’s no substitute for depth of understanding. One of my favorite quotes is by the Swiss historian Jacob Burkhardt who said “the essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity.” Those who deny the complexity of issues like universal health care, global warming and gun control do so because they want the power that is given to them in their simplistic answers. While simplification is desirable for understanding, it must acknowledge the underlying complexity and cannot be followed by an immediate call for action. This is the media’s favorite thing to do, which is why we are constantly bombarded with crises and never allowed to examine whether or not they’re real. The real danger that most of these supposed crises present is their supposed cure. The cure is invariably worse than the disease.