On How Not to Attack Fellow Conservatives

Let me begin with stating a general rule of mine. I am completely in favor of conservative in-fighting. By that I mean that conservatives ought to frequently and passionately engage in constructive disagreements with each other. We ought to argue over the line between freedom and virtue, between the individual and community, libertarians should fight with social conservatives who should fight with foreign policy conservatives who should fight with tenth amendment conservatives, and so on and so forth. We should fight about taxes, entitlement, foreign intervention, civil liberties, and much, much more. This is all good, and this helps us all get to better results. In-fighting is a sign of health and strength, not weakness. And conservatives (or classical liberals or broadly, "the right") ought to be different from the leftists who instinctively tend to side with those who seek more government, identity politics, political correctness, and summarily denounce those who dare buck the party line (see Booker, Cory, re: Bain Capital).

That said, when conservatives pick fights with each other, they should be constructive and helpful. And when they do, they should certainly not parrot lazy and trite talking points from the left. In addition, we should be especially careful to not to do these things during the season of what anyone who is remotely on the political right will agree is a crucial election as our nation nears and economic and social tipping point. Three intelligent and prominent conservatives recently engaged in ridiculous attacks on their ideological kin and deserved to be called out on it.

First offender is former governor and presidential candidate turned media personality and rocker-pastor-comedian hybrid guy, Mike Huckabee. He recently had this exchange in a New York Times interview: 

Q: During the Republican primary debates, audience members booed a question from an active serviceman who was gay and shouted, “Let him die,” about a hypothetical gravely ill patient without insurance. Is this different from the party that you know and love?

A: Very much. It’s one of the reasons that I did not think this was a good time to run. The atmosphere was so toxic that it would not be an atmosphere in which I would breathe well. There is almost a hyperorthodoxy that is gripping the party that you have to go out and prove that you can be tougher, meaner, more hard-line than anybody else on the stage. It may lead to effective campaigning if the goal is to be the most ideological puritan on the platform, but the ultimate goal is more of what I’d call a true Reagan model. Not the Reagan model that has been invoked — but Ronald Reagan who understood that governing is an art.

This is all just so lazy and dumb. The idea to the GOP primary having a "toxic" atmosphere and being about "hyperorthodoxy" is right out of the MSNBC playbook. I'm not sure what kind of "toxic" atmosphere he's referring to. A few dozen idiots in a debate crowd does not a toxic atmosphere make. The atmosphere is urgent, sure. Impassioned. Impatient. But "toxic"? The kind of salt of the earth Americans who comprise most of the GOP primary voters in early states did not create a toxic atmosphere, Mr. Huckabee, and shame on you for implying that they did. 

Secondly, what is this hyperorthodoxy people keep claiming, and Mr. Huckabee is sadly parroting? The GOP just nominated Mitt Romney. Mitt. Romney. Massachusetts-governing, health insurance-mandating, "I was an independent during Reagan"-claiming, Mitt Romney. If this were about hyperorthodoxy, Michelle Bachmann would have won in a walk. She lost. Badly. Or maybe Rick Perry, or Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum, or anyone but Mitt Romney. This is also the party who has nominated a Bush four times, Bob Dole, and John McCain going back to 1988. Hardly a lineup of fire-breathing, hyperorthodox, ideologically pure, super-scary right-wingers. I expect this cliche from a David Gergen, but not from you, Mr. Huckabee.

Offender number two is noted federal judge, Richard Posner. Now let it be said that Judge Posner, appointed to the seventh circuit by President Reagan, is arguably the most influential living legal mind to have not sat on the Supreme Court. There may be no one in the past century who is more of an authority on law and economics. However, he said the following in a recent NPR interview:

"Posner expressed admiration for President Ronald Reagan and the economist Milton Friedman, two pillars of conservatism. But over the past 10 years, Posner said, 'there's been a real deterioration in conservative thinking. And that has to lead people to re-examine and modify their thinking.'

'I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy,' he said."  

This is also lazy, in addition to being of questionable truth. Without even looking at the claim, ponder his premise for a moment. Why would the Republican party, however exasperating he finds it, influence his political philosophy? That would be like saying that since the Dallas Cowboys are lousy, I no longer like football. The Republican party is a part of conservatism, but that is it. Conservatism has a deep and rich philosophical history that has absolutely zero to do with the Republican party. Ask conservatives who their idols are and, outside of probably President Reagan, you'll scarcely hear a GOP politician's name mentioned. As for the claim that the GOP has become "goofy" in the past ten years, I mean ok, if you don't like Sarah Palin and think the party has made too many political mistakes that's fine, but I am still unsure why all that would impact the political philosophy of someone as intelligent and thoughtful as Judge Posner.

The third offender is every liberal's favorite Republican, Jon Huntsman. The former governor of Utah and Ambassador to China thought it would be wise to run a presidential campaign-- after the last Republican president had a serious overspending problem and the last Republican nominee was a "maverick" who had a penchant for joining with Democrats to sponsor unconstitutional free speech limits-- on the premise that the party needed to be more moderate. Shockingly, it did not turn out well. 

"I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States," Huntsman said in a statement. "A future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as fiscal and economic deficits."

He said he encourages "a return to the party we have been in the past, from Lincoln right on through to Reagan, that was always willing to put our country before politics."  

I'm not even sure what the hell that means. But I guess if you look at from Huntsman's position, he is an ivy-league educated Mormon who was a moderate governor born to a famous father. So it would make sense that he does not want to attend the GOP Convention where they nominate… an ivy-league educated Mormon who was a moderate governor born to a famous father. I do not think it's worth responding to what Huntsman said, but I do think it is worth pointing out that it is sad. Huntsman is a talented individual with a great resume who could have remained influential and relevant in conservative circles for years to come, possibly running again for president or serving in a prominent position in a future administration. Unfortunately, he has chosen to become a clown who will have a permanent spot on lefty tv shows to regurgitate all of their (incorrect) preconceived notions about conservatives.

Just to recap before I step down off my soapbox and end the sermon: Constructive conservative in-fighting is good; parroting lefty talking points to undercut your ideological kin is annoying, unnecessary, and unhelpful.

17 Year Old Calls His 13 Year Old Self "Naive"

As the WSJ's James Taranto is fond of pointing out, sometimes Life Imitates the Onion.  Today's Politico has a piece on a boy made famous after a speech he gave at a CPAC convention at 13 years old.  Jonathan Krohn, according to Politico, was supposed to be a boy wonder and political superstar of the right; that is, until he changed his mind and moved left.  Here is Krohn explaning his conversion:

“I think it was naive,” Krohn now says of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time...The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough.”

So now at 17 Mr. Krohn has done enough to have mature, fully formed opinions.  Hilarious.

According to Politico, this story puts aside the notion that as one grows older one becomes more conservative. Four years have passed, and that is not true for Jonathan. He's a grown man now and his opinions have matured--to the left.  It wasn't that Krohn changed his opinions because he got a real job or otherwise took on some real responsibilty.  No, Krohn's transformation was more theoretical.  The article explains Krohn evolved from reading Bill Bennett and listening to talk radio to studying German philosophy (always a good idea) and watching The Daily Show.

 

Now Krohn is ready to grow even more and journey further into the real world.  After graduation, he plans to enroll in New York University to study film and philosphy.  Oh, the perspective he will have after four more years!

Four Reasons Obamacare Ruling May Be Plus for Conservatives

Of course, the health care ruling this morning is bad news.  But before Conservatives get (more) depressed, take a deep breath and consider these four reasons the ruling is also a plus for conservatism:

1. The ruling will force Republicans to offer a better alternative.  Had Obamacare been ruled unconstitutional, it would have been an easy out for Republicans.  Having been upheld, Republicans will be more likely to offer a well-considered and more attractive alternative.
   
   
2. The ruling will further energize the right.  This is a reminder to conservatives that the fight with progressivism is ongoing.  We are reminded that nine judges have no more right to decide our country’s fate than do the demagogues in the White House.  We will decide to restore our country’s future this November.
   
   
3. The ruling confirms it: Obamacare is a tax.  Expect Mitt Romney to exploit every video of Obama claiming he would not raise taxes on the middle class, not even one dime.  As it turns out, the foundation of Obama’s signature law was a tax increase on the middle class.  This broken promise is not lost on the Romney team, and they are already making plans to exploit it.
   
   
4. The most important goal of Conservatives is not the defeat of Obamacare but the defeat of Obama himself.  If Conservatives want to discourage government overreach, we should know from decades of precedent the Supreme Court is not our savior.  The only real chance we ever had to stop our leftward slide is at the ballot box.  This law remains unpopular and will encourage a change at the top.  As such, this ruling helps the conservative cause. 

On to November.

Please Just Stick to Acting

Over at Salon.com there is an (unintentionally) hilarious interview of Emily Mortimer from the cast of HBO’s new series, The Newsroom.  In the interview Mortimer ridicules the Tea Party, George W. Bush, and the “dangerously uninformed” American public.  A few excerpts:

Question: Were the politics of the show appealing to you as well?

…There was a time when…I got all into the idea of politics and anarchists and Kropotkin, this Russian guy who founded the anarchist party. I got completely besotted by the idea of anarchy as the way that we should all live our lives and I was ready to kind of go fight for my belief, but then I got to university and did lots of plays and kind of forgot about that.  

It is a common story:  Up and coming anarchist with a dream to fight for mayhem and chaos, but, alas, she forgets her love affair with political dysfunction because she did lots of plays and stuff. 

Question:  Are you as troubled by America’s news culture as Sorkin seems to be?

I can remember when Bush got in for the second time, just feeling like so much of the problem about the way that politics go here is that people are improperly informed. That they didn’t know that they had been lied to, or they didn’t understand exactly to what extent they had been, and they still thought that there were weapons of mass destruction. And that was just crazy to me that people could be so under-informed.

If there is one issue of which we are fully informed it is the no WMD in Iraq issue. To be under-informed on this issue one would have had to ignore every major news outlet, every late night talk show host, every screenwriter, every opinion columnist, every blogger, and every democrat for at least five years.

I bet more people in America know there were no WMD in Iraq than know telling a lie requires knowing beforehand what you say is untrue.

Question:  You’ve lived in America for more than a decade, but you’re British. Have you always been engaged with American politics?

… The first 10 years of my being here there was a guy in charge (Bush) who was just so terrifying and it made me feel so unsettled the whole time that this guy was making those decisions. And it’s such a nice feeling having this guy (Obama) in charge now.

I’m glad Obama makes someone feel better.  At least that is some recompense for the people still out of work and all of us concerned about government overreach and global instability. 

And what was so terrifying about Bush exactly? He had many faults, but did he add five trillion to our debt in three years? Was he responsible for an impending Greek style meltdown? Did he turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood?  Or turn his back on reformists in Iran?  Did he encourage class envy?  Turn the Justice Department over to ideologues?  Ignore the mass execution of Syrians?  Did Bush forswear the Constitution?  Counteract the rule of law?  Again, Bush made several mistakes while in office, but at least he was grounded in reality, he governed responsibly, and he operated in good faith with the American people.

I’m sure Mrs. Mortimer is a fine and charming lady.  She is just guilty of what many liberals—especially those in Hollywood—are guilty of:  she doesn’t know what she doesn’t know. For this reason Mrs. Mortimer can say such nonsense and feel smart doing so.  It’s a good thing ignorance is bliss.

About Obama's Newest Jobs Argument

Obama and his people are trying to distinguish now between private sector and public sector job growth.  The number they have decided to tout is 4.3 million private sector jobs somehow “created” by Obama since he took office.  The argument is, if it wasn’t for cold-hearted Republican officials in state and local governments cutting government jobs, the jobs numbers wouldn’t be so bad.  This was the argument Obama was trying to make in his now infamous comment that, “the private sector is doing fine.”

It is hard to know if Obama is this bad at economics or if he is purposely misleading the public.  Regardless, the argument has little merit if considered beyond its face. 

Since the public sector does not produce wealth, the public sector must rely on taxing the private sector to fund its activities; tax revenues pay the salaries of government workers.  So when the private sector falters, state and local governments have less money to employ people.  Put another way, if the private sector really was “doing fine,” the public sector would be as well.   

What Obama is advocating is a temporary bailout of the public sector—federal money to hire more bureaucrats at the state and local level.  The federal government, however, is also reliant on the private sector for tax revenue.  Even when the feds borrow what they spend, they are stripping the private sector of the capital needed to grow the economy.  And the only way jobs are coming back—in either the private or public sector—is if the economy starts growing again.  My guess is that won’t happen until sometime after November 2012