Well, change is underway in Washington. Change from one administration to another at least. The promised change in Democratic politics however, has not materialized. The idea that Barack Obama would actually change the way politics are run in Washington was a nice one, but apparently nothing more than that. I honestly didn't expect that it would happen---politics are politics after all---but still, Obama's cabinet so far seems to be largely a recycling of the Clinton administration. There was a lot said during the campaign about John McCain becoming Bush's third term, but post after post, name after name, so far the Obama administration is looking Bill Clinton's third term. Obama's defence is that looking for Democrats with experience without Clinton ties is impossible, and to a certain extent, he's right. Two things, however, cause this to ring just a little hollow. First of all, if the experience for difficult times can only be found in Washington, why did Obama campaign on continued promises of the change and fresh voices that he would bring to government? Second, I don't know about liberals, but I can think of plenty of conservatives that I would love to see in Washington who don't have ties to the current administration. Why can't the new team in D.C. do the same? I think the basic reason is that the message of change was an empty one all along along. Yes, there will certainly be change...change from a moderate conservative government (in the executive branch at least) to a very liberal one. But the change that Obama talked about is not going to happen. I'll give him this: if he wants to get the most liberal government possible in the shortest time possible, he's following the best path. The people he's bringing have been on the outs (in one way or another) for eight infuriating (for them) years, and with the chance to bring their ideas back into power, they will work hard and ruthlessly to implement their liberal agenda.
And this is what is really important. We are not headed to an era of moderatism, bipartisanship, and national success, at least not by any conventional definition. The era of radical liberalism has begun instead, and it is up to conservatives to limit the damage that Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Washington can do. We must both inform the people around us of the realities of issues like economics and national defence, and stand in opposition to the policies that the Democrat party attempts to implement.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Those Liberals...
As published in the PatriotPost Monday (11/17) Brief, this quote from Burt Prelutsky paints an humorously accurate picture. As a conservative, have you ever felt like this? I know I have!
"I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do? For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group. So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics? Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return! ... So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them." --Burt Prelutsky
Also from the same edition of the PatriotPost, a similar but more serious piece from David Limbaugh. Liberal hypocrisy is stunning at times in its magnitude and its blindness to the logic of real life. This is what we face as the political minority over the next few years, so just remember: the fight will be tough, but we are ultimately combating an inferior political ideology.
"As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, 'We cannot tolerate the intolerable.' This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise 'fair elections' and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. ... It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. ... If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening." --columnist David Limbaugh
Dittos from this blogger to Prelutsky and Limbaugh.
"I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do? For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group. So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics? Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return! ... So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them." --Burt Prelutsky
Also from the same edition of the PatriotPost, a similar but more serious piece from David Limbaugh. Liberal hypocrisy is stunning at times in its magnitude and its blindness to the logic of real life. This is what we face as the political minority over the next few years, so just remember: the fight will be tough, but we are ultimately combating an inferior political ideology.
"As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, 'We cannot tolerate the intolerable.' This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise 'fair elections' and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. ... It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. ... If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening." --columnist David Limbaugh
Dittos from this blogger to Prelutsky and Limbaugh.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Moving Forward: the Future of Conservatism Post-Election '08
Well, here we are one week post-election already, and yes, the results you saw Wednesday morning last week are, unfortunately, still true: Barack Obama is president-elect and the Democrats have increased majorities in Congress. There are some things that time does not heal, including, in the short term at least, election results. America has to live until at least 2010 with a Democratic government. The question that conservatives must face is how we will live with it. To be quite honest, in the days following the election, I have experienced an odd combination of excitement and disappointment. The disappointment is natural, given the fact that America has elected to place the control of her government in the hands of those who will undermine the freedom that our country has long stood for. The excitement is for the opportunity that the conservative movement has to take our party back to the principles upon which it was founded, which made it great under Reagan, and which brought it to power in the midterms of 1994. Those same principles can bring the Republican party to victory again in 2010. Republican moderatism has failed, and it now falls to true conservatism to lead a revival.
This revival is being discussed around the conservative movement, from Rush to Gary Bauer to bloggers like myself. I think that we hold a two-fold vision. The first part of our vision is of standing as the resistance to the liberal policies that we will witness over the next 2 years at least. Make no mistake, we must take seriously the task of standing up to the "change" that the Democratic party will attempt to bring, because this change threatens grave damage to America. We must commit to an intelligent and respectful opposition of the agenda of the majority party. I emphasize intelligence and respect because we must show ourselves better than the liberal opposition of recent years, which has all too often resorted to ad hominem attacks and incessant whining. We stand against liberal policies because we know that they are wrong, because we know why they are wrong, and because we can articulate these facts. And while we will be respectful of those in power, we must never confuse this with the idea of appeasement for any reason. Neither the "historical" nature of this election, nor any supposed mandate of power compels us to cooperate with this administration. Only when the best interests of American and the principles of liberty are advanced should we do so. We must also remember that there will almost never be any reciprocity in compromise. As William Buckley, Jr., said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
The second part of this vision is what I have related above---the revival of the Republican party through Reagan conservatism. Regardless of what some have recently said, Reagan is not dead. The principles that he articulated and implemented so successfully are still living principles today. This is because they go back farther and deeper than Reagan. They are not based on the ideas of one man; they are the principles that this country was founded upon, and flow from the Judeo-Christian worldview and the vision of freedom expressed by the those who risked all to ensure that American came into being. The founding fathers of this country were not successful in creating the greatest free country in the world for no reason: they succeeded because they and succeeding generations knew that there were basic principles necessary for the success of government of, by, and for the people. As we look to reconstruct the Republican platform over the coming months, I envision a platform that has as its foundation the three "unalienable rights" that are the cornerstone of the Declaration of Indepence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is these liberties, enumerated in and protected by the Constitution, that form the roots of conservative thought. A platform that embraces them by promising to protect all forms of human life, to guarantee the basic American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights, to ensure that government is restrained to Constitutionally limited and and legitimate roles, to maintain fiscal responsibility, to allow Americans to pursue happiness uninhibited by the burden of excessive taxation, and to vigorously defend American freedom both at home and abroad will be a successful platform.
Of course, one of the questions that arises is why the American people will embrace such a platform after we have just seen them elect a socialist leader. There are several reasons why I believe that that is still a great opportunity for the success of conservatism in America today. First of all, look at the historical record. In 1976, Americans elected Jimmy Carter, a liberal much like Obama; however, only four years later, Ronald Reagan began his historical presidency. In 1992, a different moderate Republican lost to a rising young liberal with a message of hope and change. Two years after they elected Bill Clinton, however, Americans chose to accept the Contract with America, and a conservative Republican platform won Republicans control of Congress for the first time in forty years. And in 2000, George Bush was elected over the liberal populist platform of Al Gore in a rebuttal to the Clinton legacy. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because many individual politicians, and the elected party as a whole, had lost their conservative moorings. Americans did not reject a conservative platform in last week's election, they rejected a party led by a moderate that had failed repeatedly to stick to conservative principles. Second, it must not be forgotten that Democrats in recent years, including 2008, have often run on platforms that incorporated conservative elements, although with a liberal twist. Barack Obama, for example, repeatedly promised tax cuts for a large number of Americans. We know that his promises are false either directly or indirectly, but nevertheless, the principle that we should get to keep more of the money that we earn is attractive regardless of who says it.
Third, and very importantly, the Republican party has failed in not just the practice, but also in the articulation of conservative principles. During the primaries running up to the nomination of the Republican presidential candidate, a lot of conservatives, myself included, were happy that John McCain was doing badly in the early going, and then concerned when he began to pick up steam, and finally apprehensive when he was nominated. The reason for this? We knew that he was not conservative, something which his campaign message reflected. When given the choice, the majority of Americans chose a rhetorical message over a record of leadership, and I think that a lot of that choice had to do with the fact that the message that accompanied John McCain's record was not consistently conservative. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a great communicator not just because he was down-to-earth, warm speaker, but because he stuck to a consistently conservative message and articulated it in a way that anyone could understand. That is what our party must do again if they are to win back the support of the electorate and a share of power in Washington.
My message to you today is not one of defeat, but is instead a rallying cry to press forward to victory. As Winston Churchill told the people of Britain during their darkest hour, so I say today---we will never surrender, and we will confront liberalism wherever it rears its head. Columnist Tony Blankley summed up our mission thus: "If we conservatives can make our case, the election of 2008 will be a blip, just a kick-the-bums-out election. If Obama makes his case, he may have moved the center of political gravity to the left for a generation. Every conservative man and woman, to battle stations"!
This revival is being discussed around the conservative movement, from Rush to Gary Bauer to bloggers like myself. I think that we hold a two-fold vision. The first part of our vision is of standing as the resistance to the liberal policies that we will witness over the next 2 years at least. Make no mistake, we must take seriously the task of standing up to the "change" that the Democratic party will attempt to bring, because this change threatens grave damage to America. We must commit to an intelligent and respectful opposition of the agenda of the majority party. I emphasize intelligence and respect because we must show ourselves better than the liberal opposition of recent years, which has all too often resorted to ad hominem attacks and incessant whining. We stand against liberal policies because we know that they are wrong, because we know why they are wrong, and because we can articulate these facts. And while we will be respectful of those in power, we must never confuse this with the idea of appeasement for any reason. Neither the "historical" nature of this election, nor any supposed mandate of power compels us to cooperate with this administration. Only when the best interests of American and the principles of liberty are advanced should we do so. We must also remember that there will almost never be any reciprocity in compromise. As William Buckley, Jr., said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
The second part of this vision is what I have related above---the revival of the Republican party through Reagan conservatism. Regardless of what some have recently said, Reagan is not dead. The principles that he articulated and implemented so successfully are still living principles today. This is because they go back farther and deeper than Reagan. They are not based on the ideas of one man; they are the principles that this country was founded upon, and flow from the Judeo-Christian worldview and the vision of freedom expressed by the those who risked all to ensure that American came into being. The founding fathers of this country were not successful in creating the greatest free country in the world for no reason: they succeeded because they and succeeding generations knew that there were basic principles necessary for the success of government of, by, and for the people. As we look to reconstruct the Republican platform over the coming months, I envision a platform that has as its foundation the three "unalienable rights" that are the cornerstone of the Declaration of Indepence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is these liberties, enumerated in and protected by the Constitution, that form the roots of conservative thought. A platform that embraces them by promising to protect all forms of human life, to guarantee the basic American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights, to ensure that government is restrained to Constitutionally limited and and legitimate roles, to maintain fiscal responsibility, to allow Americans to pursue happiness uninhibited by the burden of excessive taxation, and to vigorously defend American freedom both at home and abroad will be a successful platform.
Of course, one of the questions that arises is why the American people will embrace such a platform after we have just seen them elect a socialist leader. There are several reasons why I believe that that is still a great opportunity for the success of conservatism in America today. First of all, look at the historical record. In 1976, Americans elected Jimmy Carter, a liberal much like Obama; however, only four years later, Ronald Reagan began his historical presidency. In 1992, a different moderate Republican lost to a rising young liberal with a message of hope and change. Two years after they elected Bill Clinton, however, Americans chose to accept the Contract with America, and a conservative Republican platform won Republicans control of Congress for the first time in forty years. And in 2000, George Bush was elected over the liberal populist platform of Al Gore in a rebuttal to the Clinton legacy. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because many individual politicians, and the elected party as a whole, had lost their conservative moorings. Americans did not reject a conservative platform in last week's election, they rejected a party led by a moderate that had failed repeatedly to stick to conservative principles. Second, it must not be forgotten that Democrats in recent years, including 2008, have often run on platforms that incorporated conservative elements, although with a liberal twist. Barack Obama, for example, repeatedly promised tax cuts for a large number of Americans. We know that his promises are false either directly or indirectly, but nevertheless, the principle that we should get to keep more of the money that we earn is attractive regardless of who says it.
Third, and very importantly, the Republican party has failed in not just the practice, but also in the articulation of conservative principles. During the primaries running up to the nomination of the Republican presidential candidate, a lot of conservatives, myself included, were happy that John McCain was doing badly in the early going, and then concerned when he began to pick up steam, and finally apprehensive when he was nominated. The reason for this? We knew that he was not conservative, something which his campaign message reflected. When given the choice, the majority of Americans chose a rhetorical message over a record of leadership, and I think that a lot of that choice had to do with the fact that the message that accompanied John McCain's record was not consistently conservative. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a great communicator not just because he was down-to-earth, warm speaker, but because he stuck to a consistently conservative message and articulated it in a way that anyone could understand. That is what our party must do again if they are to win back the support of the electorate and a share of power in Washington.
My message to you today is not one of defeat, but is instead a rallying cry to press forward to victory. As Winston Churchill told the people of Britain during their darkest hour, so I say today---we will never surrender, and we will confront liberalism wherever it rears its head. Columnist Tony Blankley summed up our mission thus: "If we conservatives can make our case, the election of 2008 will be a blip, just a kick-the-bums-out election. If Obama makes his case, he may have moved the center of political gravity to the left for a generation. Every conservative man and woman, to battle stations"!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veteran's Day
As a future member of the U.S. Marine Corps, this week of November has a doubly special meaning, with the Corps' birthday on Monday, and Veteran's Day today. Both occasions hold a mix of celebration and solemn remembrance. Celebration for the greatest fighting organization on the face of earth and for the service of thousands of veterans of all our armed forces. Solemn remembrance for the great sacrifices that men and women have made for over two centuries to preserve to preserve our country and freedom around the world. Appropriate for both days is the the birthday message of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, whose words evoke not only the tradition, fighting spirit, and mission of the Marine Corps, but also speak to the mission in which our armed forces are now engaged: the defense of our country against the threat of Islamic terrorism. And regardless of the specific threat, this mission of defending freedom is what the thousands of veterans of our armed services have fought and died for. For this, I say "thank you" to our country's veterans---may your sacrifices never be forgotten. Semper Fidelis.
Video source: Marines.mil
Video source: Marines.mil
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)