Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

The Tea Party gets a bad rap.  It was mocked this weekend by the self-indulgent, incoherent Comedy Central rally in DC, supposedly to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.  While some have said their rally meant nothing, I believe it was the encore performance of Bush-era contempt for those who were reasonably and genuinely concerned for safety in the age of Islamic terrorism.  Oh, our “over-reaction” to 9/11, how funny that is.  How funny that their rally coincided with the interception of numerous al Qaeda bombs from Yemen. So realistic those liberals (including Republican liberals like Bush and McCain), allowing in tens of thousands of Muslim  Arabs after 9/11, while concerning themselves so punctiliously with the human rights of human scum down in GITMO.

That said, the concern with national security to the exclusion of other traditional conservative concerns after 9/11 has been a problem for the right.  It’s not been a problem that national security became a concern.   Bush clearly intended to defeat al Qaeda and took it seriously, even as he allowed his open borders liberalism to lead him into incoherence.  But for the left, it was all just a big overeaction.  We’re not really at war in their eyes. The enemy is just misunderstood or an echo of our own deep evil as a country.

The bigger problem for conservatives was that our post-9/11 prioritization of national security excluded the historical concern of conservatives for fiscal conservatism, a serious rethinking of the entitlement state, and the traditional concern for excessive debts.  And that national security policy was made on explicitly liberal grounds of expanding democracy and maintaining high rates of immigration.  The promise of the Tea Party movement (and its associated candidates) is that serious rollback of the entitlement state is now being discussed after a decade of Republican-led prolifgacy.  And its criticism extends to weak-kneed Republicans like Charlie Crist and Lisa Murkowski.

Janet Daly observes the real import of the Tea Party movement:

It was widely known in Europe that the American Left hated George Bush (and even more, Dick Cheney) because of his military adventurism. What was less understood was that the Right disliked him almost as much for selling the pass over government spending, bailing out the banks, and failing to keep faith with the fundamental Republican principle of containing the power of central government.

So the Republicans are, if anything, as much in revolt against the establishment within their own party as they are against the Democrats. And this is what the Tea Parties (which should always be referred to in the plural, because they are not a monolithic movement) are all about: they are not just a reaction against a Left-liberal president but a repudiation of the official Opposition as well.

Nor are they simply the embodiment of reactionary social conservatism, which has been the last redoubt of the traditional Republican Right. There were plenty of people in New York who wanted to believe that Tea Partiers were just a new incarnation of the gun-totin’, gay-bashing right-to-lifers whom they found it so easy to dismiss as risible throwbacks. This is a huge political miscalculation, which quite misses the point of what makes the Congressional midterm elections this week such an interesting and historic political event. This is so much more than the predictable to-ing and fro-ing of party control midway through a presidential term. What the grassroots rebellion is really about is an attempt to pull the Republican party back to its basic philosophy of low-tax, low-spend, small government: the great Jeffersonian principle that the best government is that which governs least.

Of course, there is much radicalism among Tea Partiers, including a general concern for open borders and a sense of “shoving off” the guilt-trip they have endured from minority hustler politicians demanding more and more largesse and special treatment.  The Tea Party should not restrict itself to fiscal conservatism or mere partisanship. It should not confuse itself, a la Glenn Beck, that a nonpartisan restoration of honor will do the trick.  If the Tea Party leaders and their members would connect the dots of the open borders Third World invasion of America, the racial dynamics of affirmative action, the impossibility of “exporting democracy,” and the unsustainable American welfare state–as many have, individually–then real sustainable reform of our country and its health could occur.

Read Full Post »

When you look at the various policies that have contributed to America’s current crisis, it’s evident that a series of bipartisan, popular-with-elites, and thoroughly short-sighted policies have done much to bring us to where we are.   These policies are largely sacrosanct, particularly among elites, in spite of where we find ourselves as a country.  These include the following:

  • Free trade orthodoxy that eschews any “industrial policy” and has sent a great number of American jobs and much of America’s manufacturing capacity to the Third World, particularly China.
  • A related lack of criticism of our low wage, high consumption economic regime.  Americans’ wages have stagnated and credit–including housing based credit and refinance loans–did much to mask that wealth and wage decline over the last 15 years.
  • Support for multiculturalism, diversity, and mass immigration, which has left America disunited, with a lower wage and lower IQ workforce, and problems of Third World violence and terrorist acts that were formerly unknown to America.
  • A belief that home ownership is something attainable for all and that public policy should support the housing sector with various subsidies for the uncreditworthy.
  • A belief that a college degree is something attainable for all and that it should be subsidized by government grants and loans, which has left many Americans with worthless pseudo-degrees in subjects like “packaging” or “communications” along with mountains of (nondischargable) debt.
  • Indifference to unsustainable government pensions, transfer payments and welfare policies, including Medicare and Social Security, which will be insolvent in short order and will ultimately bankrupt the country.
  • Indifference to high rates of illegitimacy, which is subsidized by various government policies like Section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, AFDC, and the like.
  • Support for global crusading, interventionism, and other activities that cost a great deal of money, employ our military in thankless and impossible ventures like Iraq and Kosovo, and that create enemies with long memories, while winning us few friends.

The thread that unites these phenomena to me is that they are all mutually enforcing, rooted in cosmopolitanism and sentimentality, and all are far from being solved.  Indeed, some of these problems are being made worse, as in the ram-through of Obamacare.  Elites have offshored jobs and imported cheap labor, which has pushed down wages and reduced productivity-per-worker, as well as the mean IQ, which in turn is masked by easy credit, worthless degrees, welfare policies, deficit spending, and denial regarding America’s various fiscal crises.  The foreign policy problem is mostly sui generis, except insofar as our elites believe so highly in themselves and consider the interests of random Third Worlders equally valuable as those of their countrymen.

In all of these areas, the elites have dissipated the country’s wealth, especially its human capital.  Whether Republican or Democrat, anyone who believes these things does not deserve to govern.

Read Full Post »

I would not be so offended if Obama or any other politician said:  we’ve spent too much money on too many things for too long; we must economize, and the Defense Department too must learn to be more efficient with public funds.  But Obama, instead, has said we must spend far and wide on everything from sidewalk improvements and  “green jobs” to home mortgages and banks, because government spending is needed to lift us out of an economic crisis.  But the one area that must embrace austerity and cut its budget is the Department of Defense, which is charged with fighting two wars and keeping us safe from any emerging threats

The whole thing suggests partisan spite, a holdover from Obama’s 1980s liberalism and its contempt for Reagan’s rebuilding of the military after the painful, post-Vietnam degradation of its capabilities.  This spending has proven to be a huge bargain, leading to the end of the Soviet Union, the nearly bloodless victory in the First Gulf War, and our ability today to project unmatched conventional power in defense of our nation and its interests around the globe.  Those interceptor vests, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, and stealth fighters weren’t cheap, but neither should be American lives. 

It may well be debatable whether the F-22 is absolutely necessary given the state of conventional threats.  But if we’re going to be spending gazillions of dollars on everything and nothing in a Pelosi-drafted Stimulus Bill, while also surging our forces in Afghanistan, would it be too much to ask that they be given the best, most life saving weapons whether improved MRAPs, body armor, rifles, and transport helicopters like the Osprey. Is it so extravagent to update our helicopters every 40 years so that pilots don’t fly unsafe aircraft older than they are! The Pentagon must do better with the money it has and have a strategic reality check on the threats ahead.  Rumsfeld, to his credit, did away with the Crusader Artillery program and encoruaged all branches to be more expeditionary.  But to cut its budget in a time of profligacy on general principle reeks of spite and Obama’s (and his socialist father’s) college kid dreams of sticking it tot he military-industrial complex.  After all, unlike midnight basketball and housing bailouts, national defense is a constitutionally mandated federal government responsibility.

Read Full Post »

A depressing exposition by Srdja Trifkovic on the evil, interventionist consensus at the heart of both Democratic and Republican foreign policy views. Both are essentially rooted in a militant liberalism that has little in common with the old creed of George Washington about avoiding foreign entangelements:

It is incorrect to describe Wilsonianism and neoconservatism as two “schools” of foreign policy. They are, rather, two sects of the same Western heresy that has its roots in the Renaissance and its fruits in liberal democracy. Their shared denominational genes are recognizable not in what they seek but in what they reject: polities based on national and cultural commonalities; durable elites and constitutions; and independent economies. Both view all permanent values and institutions with unrestrained hostility. Both exalt state power and reject any political tradition based on the desirability of limited government at home and nonintervention in foreign affairs. Both claim to favor the “market” but advocate a kind of state capitalism managed by the transnational apparatus of global financial and regulatory institutions.Their shared core belief—that society should be managed by the state in both its political and its economic life—is equally at odds with the tenets of the liberal left and those of the traditional right. Far from being “patriotic” in any conventional sense, they both reject the real, historic America in favor of a propositional construct devoid of all organic bonds and collective memories.

The two sects’ deep-seated distaste for the traditional societies, regimes, and religion of the European continent was manifested in President Clinton’s war against the Serbs in 1999 and in their unanimous support for Kosovo’s independence today.

For the same reason, they share a visceral Russophobia, a soft spot for Chechen jihadists, and a commitment to NATO expansion. Both Wilsonians and neoconservatives are united in opposing democracy in postcommunist Eastern Europe, lest it produce governments that will base the recovery of their ravaged societies on the revival of the family, sovereign nationhood, and the Christian Faith. Inevitably, they have joined forces in creating and funding political parties and NGOs east of the Trieste-Stettin Line that promote the entire spectrum of postmodern isms that have atomized America and the rest of the West for the past four decades. From Bratislava to Bucharest to Belgrade, both present the embrace of deviancy, perversion, and morbidity as the litmus test of an aspirant’s “Western” clubbability. Ultimately, both sects share the Straussian dictum that the perpetual manipulation of hoi polloi by those in power is necessary because they need to be told what is good for them.

Read Full Post »

Unfortunately, with an impending Democratic presidency, we can expect more calls for gun control.  Horrible shootings like the schoolyard shootings in Stockton and Columbine were widely discussed in the national media and given front page treatment.  It’s not surprising that the recent tragedy involving a mass shooting by a police officer in Wisconsin is buried on the New York Times’ website today.  And why?  Well, it doesn’t support gun control, because even anti-gun types believe police should have guns.  The gun control agenda depends upon manipulating images rather than dealing with facts.  Accidental and mass shootings receive saturation coverage, while uses of guns in self-defense and the misuse of guns by officials are generally relegated to the local news, if they are covered at all.

Read Full Post »