The task before conservatives is:
(1) to stick to our principles,
(2) to consistently and vigorously oppose the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda,
(3) to pick our fights with careful prioritization, and
(4) to use skillful diplomacy and tactics in advancing conservative policies to decrease the size of government, stop illegal immigration, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense.
The above task is urgent and crucial. It's simple to express, but difficult and complex to implement. That's why there is such temptation to retreat, to be in denial, and to seek an easier way out. But all such distractions and diversions - some of which I will enumerate - are counter-productive and mistaken.
On the list below of seven distractions, #7 is currently my favorite - in other words, it's the one I want to emphasize now.
Mistaken distraction #1 - instead of sticking to our principles, let's drop or de-emphasize the social conservative issues (life, family, marriage). [This viewpoint has been advanced by some conservative pundits, and by some comments on various threads on this blog. Also, at least one recent unsuccessful candidate for the King County GOP executive board openly advocated such an approach. However, this idea flies in the face of the results of recent statewide referenda on marriage. The social conservative issues are a bridge toward increasing our vote totals by winning over segments of Democrats, independents, Blacks, and Hispanics.]
Mistaken distraction #2 - instead of promoting constitutional principles, smaller government, and reduced spending, some pundits (e.g., Bill Kristol in the December 8 New York Times) and some Republican elected officials (e.g., some local Republicans supported the 2007 ballot measures that would have led to massive unwise transportation spending) openly call from de-emphasizing the small government issue. [Have they learned nothing from 2006 and 2008?]
Mistaken distraction #3 - the proposal by some moderate or liberal-leaning Republicans to move "more to the center" and drop our strong position in favor of tough border security and opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Mistaken distraction #4 - the proposal by some moderate, liberal-leaning, or libertarian-leaning Republicans to drop, or to de-emphasize, the Reagan conservative foreign policy of internationalism and promoting liberty world-wide. Reagan's policies with regard to Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, and to Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Grenada, were posited on the understanding that the survival of liberty at home cannot be separated from the active promotion of liberty abroad. That's why Reagan sought the overthrow and destruction of tyranny in Eastern Europe, and did not accept as a given the "reality" of the captive nation status of the Soviet satellites. [In today's world, the recent Mumbai attacks show once again the brutality and obscene inhumanity of the Islamic terrorists. If they acquire nuclear weapons (from a future nuclear Iran?), they would not hesitate to use them against innocent civilians. How do we oppose Obama on foreign policy if we abandon the Reagan conservative foreign policy?]
Mistaken distraction #5 - instead of fighting Obama on the issues, avoid that fight and retreat into a futile and ridiculous effort to claim he is not eligible for the presidency.
Mistaken distraction #6 - instead of fighting Obama on the issues, give up in frustration and despair, and just drop out of political activity.
Mistaken distraction #7 - instead of vigorously fighting Obama on the issues, avoid (or weaken) that fight by deluding ourselves that Obama is not so bad, that the left is angry at Obama, that Obama will govern from the center, etc. Eric Earling has posted some comments that go somewhat in this direction.
It's wishful thinking to imagine that the far left, the liberal elite, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media will really be in any serious split with the Obama administration. Let's not give credit where none is due; let's not disarm ourselves.
For an interesting alternative viewpoint (in contrast to some of Eric's posts) about how liberals really feel about Obama, see the article by Michael Tomasky, below. It is also available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/dec/09/obama-white-house
If it's true that nature abhors a vacuum, then that rather unnatural state of man known as cable television is positively repulsed by one. And so, during this lugubrious interregnum in which millions of us are still coming down from the months-long high of checking Nate Silver and Real Clear Politics nine times a day and dying inside because the polls out of Ohio contradict one another, the political class needs something to chatter about.
It has chosen, for more days running than I'd imagined necessary, the story of the liberal activists who already feel betrayed by Barack Obama. The Politico weighed in Monday with a piece noting that some liberals (actually, it didn't even qualify it with "some"; it just said "liberals") "are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices."
Well, they didn't call me, and you can place me well outside the magic circle. I'm not nervous or flat-out angry or even concerned. I'm excited. And by the way, the vast majority of the people I know are excited, too.
Obama is still seven weeks away from taking office but has already signaled that he's going to do grand things, huge things - dare I say heretofore unimaginable things. A half-trillion dollar (at least; some suspect it may end up being more like a trillion) jobs-and-infrastructure program, which he wants to enact as soon as possible after he takes office? Liberals have complained for decades - yes, decades, since the 1970s - about the creaky state of America's bridges and roads and the need for more spending on transit. Ditto the schools. We live in a country of which it's still probably true that most schools were built in the 1920s (New York City, for example, opened a new school building once every three weeks for that entire decade). Again, we have complained and complained and complained about their condition, and quite rightly so, for decades.
And here comes a president who is about to do something about all this, and do it more grandly than most liberals would have dared to imagine just a few months ago. And do it immediately. And he's not liberal enough? Please. If President Obama were to pass a trillion dollar jobs-and-infrastructure bill and, Heaven forbid, drop dead on his elliptical machine in March, that single act alone would be enough to make him one of the most progressive presidents in the history of the country.
You read that right. The history of the country. Remember, Bill Clinton was the master of small-bore progressivism. Lyndon Johnson had staggering domestic accomplishments, but always there is Vietnam. Franklin Roosevelt is the ne plus ultra of progressivism in the White House, and for many good reasons, but remember that he interned Japanese-Americans (and, it is largely forgotten, a smaller number of Italo-Americans) and made his deal with the racist south.
And while we're doing FDR comparisons, note Obama's rhetorical support (he has no authority to offer any other kind) of the workers at the Chicago door and window plant staging a sit-in, demanding their severance pay. Obama said emphatically: they are right. In 1936 and 1937, after his re-election, Roosevelt - as the incumbent president who'd just won 46 states (out of our then 48) and 63% of the vote and was thus in a far more powerful position than Obama is today - could not bring himself to utter a word in support of the sit-down strikers in Flint, Michigan trying to join the auto workers' union.
It was an improvement on previous practice, to be sure, that Roosevelt said nothing. His predecessors would have ordered in the troops. But he couldn't offer even a rhetorical pat on the back. Obama has brought these people national attention and sent the signal that, with respect to treatment of workers and related issues like grotesque executive compensation, on which he has also spoken out forcefully, we are going to be entering a different era. I'll send you a gold-embossed copy of Mark Penn's latest book if you can realistically persuade me that a president-elect Clinton would have said anything like what Obama said.
It's the nature of politics that activists who represent constituencies should complain - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. It's further in the nature of progressives that people are more likely to complain publicly than privately, which is how the right often issued its gentle remonstrances against George Bush.
And people should keep up pressure. I'm all for that. Lord knows, Obama will be getting pressure from the larger creatures of the sea, the oil companies and the insurance lobby and the centrist and conservative deficit hawks. So the smaller fish should make noise too. Politicians, even good and decent ones, don't usually do things because they're nice guys. They do things because they're getting pressure.
But there is a vast difference between applying pressure and taking bits of evidence and extrapolating to wild conclusions and crazy rhetoric from them. And people who can't see that Obama needs to reassure the political establishment by doing things like re-appointing Robert Gates at the Pentagon precisely so he can have the establishment's good will, which in turn grants him the room to operate and to isolate the political opposition, understand so little about politics that it's not even worth the time it would take to spell out the argument to them.
He will disappoint. I've said it here before, and I've said it to every audience I've spoken to in recent weeks. That is inevitable. Once in office, he will need to prove that he is the boss, and not this or that Cabinet officer, and if there's any leading around by the nose to be done, he'll be doing it.
But he's still weeks away from office and he's already backing up powerless working people, talking about hundreds of billions in government dollars being committed to building up the country, tackling health care and climate change, reiterating that deficit reduction is a low priority right now, standing by his pledge to draw down in Iraq and apparently planning to go to Cairo (probably) to give a speech on America's new relationship to the world - a move, again, that I can't conceive of any president of my lifetime having the guts to consider making in his first hundred days.
The cable shows have hours to fill, and bloggers know that if they complain they might well be asked to help fill them. But disappointment...anger? If what we've seen so far be compromise, I say serve me seconds.
The above article by Michael Tomasky is also available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/dec/09/obama-white-house
One item we could be FOR is to promote legislation in WA that every troop who served in the Iraq and Afghani theater be made an honorary citizen of WA for purposes of in-state tuition at WA universities. If we can offer that to illegal immigrants, surely we can do the same for our troops. AND... we 'd get a better class of citizen.
I sent Dino money and this suggestion regularly but his campaign didn't pick it up.
Is there NO Republican legislator who could introduce this at the next session?
Posted by: John425 on December 10, 2008 11:07 AMDo you back an exemption for any group within the above?
Posted by: John425 on December 10, 2008 01:29 PMIf you back a law outlawing same-sex marriages, you just limited the liberty of another, thus you can't be 'for liberty'. You're just for liberties you care about.
Of course one might be tempted to say something like "stupid liberals on this blog supporting things like incest and polygamy" - but I don't. What consenting adults do is no business of mine if it doesn't affect me or someone who has no choice in the matter, thus violating their self ownership.
It's between them and God in my book. It cannot possibly make my life worse, or the lives of my children, because I do not need to validate my beliefs by forcing them on others. My religious and moral beliefs stand on their own merit, and require voluntary compliance for those who would believe... not forced obedience, which would be worthless.
Just to clarify here - I do not engage in these things, nor do I have any desire to do so. I merely understand that if everyone has a voice in legislating morality on others, eventually there will be nothing left that is considered morally acceptable. It is definitely a slow erosion - I'm not saying that if we ban gay marriage, then church will be outlawed in 10 years - but it is an erosion nonetheless.
Instead the solution is to protect the property rights - beginning with self ownership - of everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe. In other words, you would have no right to prohibit a gay guy from marrying another gay guy in a consensual relationship... but they also have no right to prohibit you from worshiping as you please.
"But this will destroy the sanctity of marriage!", you say?
This argument is absurd. Your marriage cannot be cheapened or enriched by anyone but your spouse and yourself. Each marriage is an island unto itself and if gay people getting married jeopardizes it, then it was not strong to begin with. That is your responsibility, no one else's.
"My children shouldn't have to see gay guys kissing!"
Do you hide them from men and women kissing? Do you hide them from your television? It's out there, and the more you shelter them - I know this, because did an overzealous job of sheltering myself - the more they will lack the readiness to take on the world. Give them the facts, explain that your belief system says that it's wrong and that your justification is that God said so, and let them choose for themselves. Are you that afraid of your parenting choices that having them realize there are other lifestyles out there could lead them astray? Give yourself the credit you deserve. Teach them right from wrong, don't hide the wrong from them.
All of this aside, you're welcome to back whatever you want, of course, but to claim that you really support liberty and then back a law outlawing an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone's property rights is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty, sir.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 10, 2008 03:11 PMBoundless Liberty gets out of hand and reckless once in a while. It is against the law to attempt suicide by jumping off the Aurora bridge, but not illegal if you can convince 2 MDs to assist you in your home. You are too focused on "property rights" and "what's the harm?" No property damage takes place while driving down the street-provided you restrict your liberty by obeying traffic rules and limiting someone else's desire to drive south on a northbound freeway.
Andrew is not injecting religion at all. He is saying those issues do not involve him at all because there is no harm to him. He is simply saying let others do as they wish so long as they do not infringe on him. That is the definition of liberty.
Slavery in Darfur (and it's far more than slavery, to my understanding) infringes on the natural property rights of man (and woman, and child) because it violates their self ownership.
I would strongly urge you to go back and read what I wrote with an eye toward the fact that I want the property rights of ALL human beings protected. If an action, such as 2 gay men consensually 'marrying', does not affect anyone else, then there is no logical, rational, reason for it to be illegal.
You may find it distasteful and sinful or 'wrong', but that is your opinion, and laws should not be based on opinion - you may disagree, and that works for your benefit as long as you're the majority, but what happens when the gay guy gets elected and wants to outlaw straight marriage? - instead, law should be based on objective logic and rational thought.
I know of no other standard that is both objective and rational than the idea of property rights that begin with self ownership and extend to the product of your effort and time.
Now again, you can choose to support whatever you wish. Just don't claim to be for liberty when you actively speak up to demand limitations on it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 11, 2008 10:49 AMLysander made a slight mistake in his choice of wording. Instead of saying "...let others do as they wish so long as they don't infringe on the property rights of OTHERS", he said "He is simply saying let others do as they wish so long as they do not infringe on him."
Instead of relying on his interpretation of my words, why don't you rely on my clear explanation?
You are correct that we can't let the polygamists and incestuous stand out in the cold. Child marriage, I already explained how that infringes on another's self ownership because they can't yet make that choice for themselves.
With the exception of child marriage (which is already allowed with parental permission, at a certain point), how does curtailing these liberties make a society of people work?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 12, 2008 09:02 AMThe Republican Party is strongest when we adhere to all five aspects of conservatism (fiscal conservatism, immigration conservatism, social conservatism, national security conservatism, and optimism conservatism). Nevertheless, we should enthusiastically welcome all those who - despite differences - are willing to support the overall objectives of the Republican Party and to work for the election of Republican candidates.
Even if one is not a social conservative, and even if one does not agree with the pro-life position as expressed in the GOP platform, I urge the consideration of the other points where we do find ourselves in agreement (fiscal conservatism, immigration conservatism, and national security conservatism). The overall policies of conservatism are beneficial to our nation and far superior to the far left agenda of the Democratic Party. Let's work together where we agree, and in the meantime let's try to patiently discuss and persuade each other regarding those issues where we disagree.
We have many rights - natural rights which are derived from God. These God-given rights are codified in our constitution and must be protected by government. And it's no accident that, in enumerating some of these rights, the Declaration of Independence - our founding document - recognizes the "right to life" first of all. Without life, there is no liberty. Without liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. I believe in the sanctity of all human life, and I'm committed to the protection of liberty for all human life - including innocent, unborn human life.
I don't see abortion as a social liberal thing. I see it as a violation of the self ownership of the child, which should not be allowed any more than an assault on the self ownership of an adult.
I'm with you on abortion.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 12, 2008 11:56 AM