A few months ago I threw out a few quickly composed thoughts about Republican "common sense." Thinking Out Loud through the question of why college-educated, white, religiously oriented Americans, in general, more often than not, vote Republican, I suggested:
"[T]he rhetoric of the Republican Party acknowledges the God that the majority worships and honors expressions of love for the nation, which a majority still believe to be the "last best hope for mankind." During the generation following the Civil War, the Republican Party chastised the Democrats: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, it seems as if not all Democrats are America-haters, but all America-haters are Democrats. It is easy to make the case in the heartland that the Republican Party is for God and country (and the other guys are not so sure)."
You may review the full post here.
Important Disclaimer: Let the record show that I believe wholeheartedly that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Tsongas, Paul Wellstone, Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold does not hate America. The Democratic Party has played a vital and positive role in shaping American history and political culture. I sincerely hope that tradition continues in perpetuity.
Having said that, the Democratic Party has some exigent problems in terms of public perception and, more importantly, policy making, which are rooted in real structural and systemic weaknesses in basic Democratic Party DNA.
What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
A related sub-question: Why do so many regular Americans see the Democrats as oddly out of step with their values?
Mostly, it is the result of the complicated make-up of the Democratic Party coalition.
Take Michael Moore (please). Moore is a radical thinker (talker) on the outskirts of the Democratic Party mainstream. As you may remember, Moore supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. He felt guilty for contributing to the Bush presidency, so he came back into the fold in 2004. Democrats were very happy to have him (intent on making him feel at home), famously seating him next to former-President Jimmy Carter in a privileged box for dignitaries at the Democratic National Convention.
Does Moore hate America? He is definitely cynical about our history and our system. Granted, he is more anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-wealth than "anti-American." On the other hand, if you follow his line of reasoning, you find it pretty difficult to see the United States as anything less than a malevolent power, insensitive to its own citizens and a danger to the world (too many evil Republicans in power for too long). Is this an America-hating position? Reasonable people will disagree, but we can safely say that his views are certainly not an America-loving perspective. Many Americans find that fine distinction difficult to maintain.
Am I picking on an extremist who is unrepresentative of his party? I don't think so. I know literally scores of rational Democrats who went to Fahrenheit 911, laughing and applauding and praising Moore for his high art and insightful contemporary history. I have friends who quote Moore (often unknowingly) and build points on his interpretation of history (once again, often unknowingly). My point: Moore is not an isolated case.
Why do Democrats put themselves in such a vulnerable position? As I say above, many agree with him in principle. More importantly, politics makes for strange bedfellows; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Bush and the Republicans are the enemy. The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose Michael Moore (and his ilk) to radical third parties; that is, the Democrats cannot win national elections without the Michael Moore fringe in America. Therefore, they are stuck with Michael Moore as a valued ally and celebrated spokesman.
The Democratic Party has several other problem constituencies within its coalition, including but not limited to American academia, old guard feminists and the so-called civil rights organizations. I intend to discuss these other factors in the days to come.
"[T]he rhetoric of the Republican Party acknowledges the God that the majority worships and honors expressions of love for the nation, which a majority still believe to be the "last best hope for mankind." During the generation following the Civil War, the Republican Party chastised the Democrats: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, it seems as if not all Democrats are America-haters, but all America-haters are Democrats. It is easy to make the case in the heartland that the Republican Party is for God and country (and the other guys are not so sure)."
You may review the full post here.
Important Disclaimer: Let the record show that I believe wholeheartedly that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Tsongas, Paul Wellstone, Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold does not hate America. The Democratic Party has played a vital and positive role in shaping American history and political culture. I sincerely hope that tradition continues in perpetuity.
Having said that, the Democratic Party has some exigent problems in terms of public perception and, more importantly, policy making, which are rooted in real structural and systemic weaknesses in basic Democratic Party DNA.
What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
A related sub-question: Why do so many regular Americans see the Democrats as oddly out of step with their values?
Mostly, it is the result of the complicated make-up of the Democratic Party coalition.
Take Michael Moore (please). Moore is a radical thinker (talker) on the outskirts of the Democratic Party mainstream. As you may remember, Moore supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. He felt guilty for contributing to the Bush presidency, so he came back into the fold in 2004. Democrats were very happy to have him (intent on making him feel at home), famously seating him next to former-President Jimmy Carter in a privileged box for dignitaries at the Democratic National Convention.
Does Moore hate America? He is definitely cynical about our history and our system. Granted, he is more anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-wealth than "anti-American." On the other hand, if you follow his line of reasoning, you find it pretty difficult to see the United States as anything less than a malevolent power, insensitive to its own citizens and a danger to the world (too many evil Republicans in power for too long). Is this an America-hating position? Reasonable people will disagree, but we can safely say that his views are certainly not an America-loving perspective. Many Americans find that fine distinction difficult to maintain.
Am I picking on an extremist who is unrepresentative of his party? I don't think so. I know literally scores of rational Democrats who went to Fahrenheit 911, laughing and applauding and praising Moore for his high art and insightful contemporary history. I have friends who quote Moore (often unknowingly) and build points on his interpretation of history (once again, often unknowingly). My point: Moore is not an isolated case.
Why do Democrats put themselves in such a vulnerable position? As I say above, many agree with him in principle. More importantly, politics makes for strange bedfellows; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Bush and the Republicans are the enemy. The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose Michael Moore (and his ilk) to radical third parties; that is, the Democrats cannot win national elections without the Michael Moore fringe in America. Therefore, they are stuck with Michael Moore as a valued ally and celebrated spokesman.
The Democratic Party has several other problem constituencies within its coalition, including but not limited to American academia, old guard feminists and the so-called civil rights organizations. I intend to discuss these other factors in the days to come.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Earlier A Waco Farmer challenged us, partners and readers, to articulate a coherent political philosophy. I am easing into the challenge first by stating what I am not, and why not. Libertarian. Socialist.
In a nutshell, I am not a Libertarian because I perceive that political philosophy to have a faulty view of human nature: it thinks of humans essentially as isolated atoms without an appreciation for the social aspect of our nature. And, it tends to see sin only in structures like government, not in the hearts of individuals.
In a nutshell, I am not a Socialist because I perceive that political philosophy to have a faulty view of human nature: it thinks that humans can behave altruistically for the common good, and, not have their virtue corrupted by dependency.
Today Fascist, Nazi, or Communist. While these may seem diverse political philosophies, in my view they are foxes tied together at the tails, capable of burning down all that is good in life (let's see which commentator can recognize the biblical reference).
First, all of them put a nearly absolute priority on the collective, the social, over against the individual. In other words, they are the mirror image error of Libertarianism. If the latter system absolutizes the individual, these three absolutize the state. They misread the human situation, that of social individuals.
Second, all of them are totalitarian systems. That is, they are philosophies and ways of life that seek to explain and to govern every aspect of human life. They therefore make the claim of omnicompetance for human systems, and try to exert omnipotence over individual life. If Libertarianism is individual hubris, this is social hubris.
In a nutshell, I am not a Libertarian because I perceive that political philosophy to have a faulty view of human nature: it thinks of humans essentially as isolated atoms without an appreciation for the social aspect of our nature. And, it tends to see sin only in structures like government, not in the hearts of individuals.
In a nutshell, I am not a Socialist because I perceive that political philosophy to have a faulty view of human nature: it thinks that humans can behave altruistically for the common good, and, not have their virtue corrupted by dependency.
Today Fascist, Nazi, or Communist. While these may seem diverse political philosophies, in my view they are foxes tied together at the tails, capable of burning down all that is good in life (let's see which commentator can recognize the biblical reference).
First, all of them put a nearly absolute priority on the collective, the social, over against the individual. In other words, they are the mirror image error of Libertarianism. If the latter system absolutizes the individual, these three absolutize the state. They misread the human situation, that of social individuals.
Second, all of them are totalitarian systems. That is, they are philosophies and ways of life that seek to explain and to govern every aspect of human life. They therefore make the claim of omnicompetance for human systems, and try to exert omnipotence over individual life. If Libertarianism is individual hubris, this is social hubris.
Tocqueville recently directed me to this link (interesting blog) and issue, which he suggested was an "important discussion taking place across the blogosphere."
The post discusses an essay by Brink Lindsey entitled "Liberaltarians" (on the Cato Institute website) and a discussion of the essay from the American Spectator.
What is a Liberaltarian?
According to Lindsey, libertarian-leaning voters are increasingly unhappy with the conservative-dominated Republican Party over so-called big-government conservatism and the growing influence of evangelical Christianity in GOP policy making. That is, libertarians favor small government and less regulation in business and personal morality. The current Republican Party seems perfectly content to allow (facilitate) the growth of government and runaway government spending. The other gap is on moral issues (values): "The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government."
What is a libertarian-Republican to do? The old fusion of libertarians and traditional conservatives appears more and more tenuous. As the original blog post points out, most traditional conservatives are more than ready and willing to show their erstwhile Cold War allies the door. Lindsey suggests that the libertarians ought to start thinking about a new alliance for progress and freedom with liberals.
My real question today, however, is how would you define your own political philosophy? In the comments section a few days ago, the Okie Gardener took renewed umbrage at a remark I made years ago, when I observed that he was not a pure conservative--but a Midwestern populist. Frankly, after reading the Gardener on a daily basis, he writes much more conservative than I originally believed him to be when I made that statement, but I would not back off from my assertion that populism and regionalism play a significant role in his worldview.
As the piece on "liberaltarians" argues, there is great difficulty in fitting one's political philosophy into one category. Gossenius labels himself a small-government liberal. I see myself as an evangelical-conservative-libertarian. Joab claims to be a libertarian-conservative. Steinway is a Goldwater Republican. Tocqueville is the most orthodox conservative I know. What about Martian Mariner? Photognome? Bear-Tex? Evrvglnt? And others?
So, my question: how would you define your political philosophy? How did you get there? Where do you want to go? Feel free to comment on the Liberaltarian article--but I would also really enjoy hearing about your intellectual journey.
Note: Obviously, I should lead by example, but I may not be able to offer my story for a few hours or days.
Update: I have now posted some of my thoughts in the comments section.
The post discusses an essay by Brink Lindsey entitled "Liberaltarians" (on the Cato Institute website) and a discussion of the essay from the American Spectator.
What is a Liberaltarian?
According to Lindsey, libertarian-leaning voters are increasingly unhappy with the conservative-dominated Republican Party over so-called big-government conservatism and the growing influence of evangelical Christianity in GOP policy making. That is, libertarians favor small government and less regulation in business and personal morality. The current Republican Party seems perfectly content to allow (facilitate) the growth of government and runaway government spending. The other gap is on moral issues (values): "The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government."
What is a libertarian-Republican to do? The old fusion of libertarians and traditional conservatives appears more and more tenuous. As the original blog post points out, most traditional conservatives are more than ready and willing to show their erstwhile Cold War allies the door. Lindsey suggests that the libertarians ought to start thinking about a new alliance for progress and freedom with liberals.
My real question today, however, is how would you define your own political philosophy? In the comments section a few days ago, the Okie Gardener took renewed umbrage at a remark I made years ago, when I observed that he was not a pure conservative--but a Midwestern populist. Frankly, after reading the Gardener on a daily basis, he writes much more conservative than I originally believed him to be when I made that statement, but I would not back off from my assertion that populism and regionalism play a significant role in his worldview.
As the piece on "liberaltarians" argues, there is great difficulty in fitting one's political philosophy into one category. Gossenius labels himself a small-government liberal. I see myself as an evangelical-conservative-libertarian. Joab claims to be a libertarian-conservative. Steinway is a Goldwater Republican. Tocqueville is the most orthodox conservative I know. What about Martian Mariner? Photognome? Bear-Tex? Evrvglnt? And others?
So, my question: how would you define your political philosophy? How did you get there? Where do you want to go? Feel free to comment on the Liberaltarian article--but I would also really enjoy hearing about your intellectual journey.
Note: Obviously, I should lead by example, but I may not be able to offer my story for a few hours or days.
Update: I have now posted some of my thoughts in the comments section.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Dick Morris has some concrete suggestions for real reform in Congress, if anyone is serious. Here. From Jewish World Review.
I especially like banning immediate family members from lobbying.
I especially like banning immediate family members from lobbying.
Wizbang has this post arguing the affirmative. Seriously? We link, you decide.
I am grieved by the news today that partisanship and petulance forced the resignation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. I fear that all the talk of a new tone in Washington is altogether disingenuous. The opposition to Bolton purportedly centered around alleged past incidents of incivility and similar breaches of decorum, which raised doubts about his ability to perform in the sensitive diplomatic post. However, his sixteen-month tenure at the UN seemingly trumps any of those speculative worries. Notwithstanding, no one seemed very interested in a review of his job performance and/or a public discussion of the question. Today's events confirm that that the accusations of ill temperment were merely a facade for mindlessly destructive partisan politics.
I agree with President Bush:
"I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate," Bush added. "They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."
I also agree with Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who opposed the Bolton appointment sixteen months ago and had this to say today:
"John Bolton has risen to the occasion and done a good job under the harshest of circumstances," Voinovich said in a statement. "I'm extremely concerned with him leaving since he's been so deeply involved with the situations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Korea and has been working in concert with fellow ambassadors toward true U.N. reform."
Shame on Senate Democrats and outgoing Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee.
The above quotes come from the Washington Post story (linked here).
I agree with President Bush:
"I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate," Bush added. "They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."
I also agree with Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who opposed the Bolton appointment sixteen months ago and had this to say today:
"John Bolton has risen to the occasion and done a good job under the harshest of circumstances," Voinovich said in a statement. "I'm extremely concerned with him leaving since he's been so deeply involved with the situations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Korea and has been working in concert with fellow ambassadors toward true U.N. reform."
Shame on Senate Democrats and outgoing Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee.
The above quotes come from the Washington Post story (linked here).
17/11: Had Enough?
Evidently, not. GOP re-elects leadership (Washington Post story here).
As I kept saying, our leadership elections were much more important to us and the nation than the Democratic canvass. Sure enough, while we watched the Pelosi follies and rubbed our hands together with glee (check out the spate of articles this morning predicting doom for the Dems), we quietly opted against reform in our own party.
What were we thinking?
As I kept saying, our leadership elections were much more important to us and the nation than the Democratic canvass. Sure enough, while we watched the Pelosi follies and rubbed our hands together with glee (check out the spate of articles this morning predicting doom for the Dems), we quietly opted against reform in our own party.
What were we thinking?
What does the Pelosi defeat today mean?
1. Nancy Pelosi is not going to be an intimidating all-powerful Speaker.
2. Nancy Pelosi is not a very good vote counter.
Both of those things augur well for President Bush and a center-right 110th.
More basically, today's events are not important in themselves. Right now, K-Fed is still better known to most Americans than Nancy Pelosi. Specific scandals and this kind of misstep will not play a large role in the next election. Remember: our leadership elections are much more important for us politically than anything Nancy Pelosi will do this week.
Just for kicks: Why did she do it?
Speaker Pelosi attempted to reward a loyal friend, knock out an old rival and, most importantly, appeal to her anti-war base. Murtha was an anti-war rock star on the scale of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. The anti-war zealots were unanimous in their support for Murtha, and I am betting that they appreciate Pelosi's overture.
1. Nancy Pelosi is not going to be an intimidating all-powerful Speaker.
2. Nancy Pelosi is not a very good vote counter.
Both of those things augur well for President Bush and a center-right 110th.
More basically, today's events are not important in themselves. Right now, K-Fed is still better known to most Americans than Nancy Pelosi. Specific scandals and this kind of misstep will not play a large role in the next election. Remember: our leadership elections are much more important for us politically than anything Nancy Pelosi will do this week.
Just for kicks: Why did she do it?
Speaker Pelosi attempted to reward a loyal friend, knock out an old rival and, most importantly, appeal to her anti-war base. Murtha was an anti-war rock star on the scale of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. The anti-war zealots were unanimous in their support for Murtha, and I am betting that they appreciate Pelosi's overture.
16/11: Newt Again
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today, Newt is in the Wall Street Journal arguing for a Ronald Reagan-esque coalition of conservatives that transcends party lines:
"[T]he Democratic victory makes it possible to re-establish the conservative Democrat and House Republican coalition which made the Reagan legislative victories of 1981-82 possible. Tip O'Neill was the liberal Democratic speaker when Reagan became president, but he did not [actually control] a liberal majority in the House. [D]espite a seemingly liberal Democrat lock in a 242-192 majority, they lost control of the floor on the most important bill [tax cuts] of Reagan's first term.
He has this exactly right. President Bush needs to employ Reagan's "boll weevil" strategy of 1981. Read the op-ed in full here.
"[T]he Democratic victory makes it possible to re-establish the conservative Democrat and House Republican coalition which made the Reagan legislative victories of 1981-82 possible. Tip O'Neill was the liberal Democratic speaker when Reagan became president, but he did not [actually control] a liberal majority in the House. [D]espite a seemingly liberal Democrat lock in a 242-192 majority, they lost control of the floor on the most important bill [tax cuts] of Reagan's first term.
He has this exactly right. President Bush needs to employ Reagan's "boll weevil" strategy of 1981. Read the op-ed in full here.
For several weeks I have resisted commenting on the Jane Harman-Nancy Pelosi-Alcee Hastings triangle of intrigue story, which involves the chairmanship of the extremely important House intelligence committee. Mainly, I have been doing my best to follow my own advice and give Speaker Pelosi some latitude in the opening moments of her leadership. However, the reportage and analysis from Ruth Marcus, a Washington Post columnist, merits attention.
Two weeks ago, Marcus discussed Pelosi's potential choice between Alcee Hastings and Jane Harman within the context of enmity between Pelosi and Harman, partisanship, racial politics and other considerations (read "An Unintelligent Choice" here ).
Today, Marcus fired on Pelosi once again. This time taking aim at her decision to support John Murtha over Stenny Hoyer for majority leader. Judging Murtha "Unfit for Majority Leader" in light of his "grainy" ethical past, Marcus proclaimed:
"I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi's first test as speaker would be whether she picks Florida's Alcee Hastings -- who was removed from his federal judgeship for agreeing to take a bribe -- to head the intelligence committee. As it turns out, I was wrong. Pelosi's first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens tomorrow, she flunked. Whether she'll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen."
Today's (Wednesday) column in full.
Also in the Post today, media critic, Howard Kurtz offers thorough analysis concerning the evolution of this story from non-issue to above-the-fold event. He asks an important question: "So why didn't the media jump on this earlier?" And Kurtz also confronts the role of the Post as Hoyer booster and chief Murtha accuser (read here).
Two weeks ago, Marcus discussed Pelosi's potential choice between Alcee Hastings and Jane Harman within the context of enmity between Pelosi and Harman, partisanship, racial politics and other considerations (read "An Unintelligent Choice" here ).
Today, Marcus fired on Pelosi once again. This time taking aim at her decision to support John Murtha over Stenny Hoyer for majority leader. Judging Murtha "Unfit for Majority Leader" in light of his "grainy" ethical past, Marcus proclaimed:
"I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi's first test as speaker would be whether she picks Florida's Alcee Hastings -- who was removed from his federal judgeship for agreeing to take a bribe -- to head the intelligence committee. As it turns out, I was wrong. Pelosi's first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens tomorrow, she flunked. Whether she'll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen."
Today's (Wednesday) column in full.
Also in the Post today, media critic, Howard Kurtz offers thorough analysis concerning the evolution of this story from non-issue to above-the-fold event. He asks an important question: "So why didn't the media jump on this earlier?" And Kurtz also confronts the role of the Post as Hoyer booster and chief Murtha accuser (read here).
