My prediction for the 2009 Superbowl:  Pittsburgh 31, Arizona 20.  I keep hearing that the Steelers haven’t faced an offense like the Cardinals will put on the field.  Well, the Cardinals haven’t played a defense as good as the Steelers (no, the Eagles don’t count).   Pittsburgh is also more balanced and experienced than Arizona, and it’ll show in the second half of Sunday’s game. 

MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann is a fantastic production.  It’s fast-paced, appealing to look at, and it covers enough offbeat stories to truly serve as an alternative to other news programs.   So how come Nancy Grace, who can spend an hour arguing about a fuzzy video where Casey Anthony may be gyrating while singing “where’s my baby!” has drawn more viewers in the adults between 25-54 demo the past two months? 

In fact, Grace and Olbermann have been neck and neck in the ratings for a while now.  How can this be?  Nancy Grace is a fine host, but like most legal shows, her program tends to whistle a single note for months, only to abruptly switch to another monotonous note for another chunk of the year.  Perhaps that’s because Countdown isn’t different in that regard.  Aside from his oddball segments, Keith Olbermann has belted out the same anti-conservative album for years.  The host of Countdown has proven to be just as predictable as Nancy Grace’s borderline tabloid subject matter (there’s only so many ways to say “faux news”).  Considering how impressive the rest of MSNBC’s flagship program is, this is a shame.   

After a Spanish judge threatened to investigate seven Israeli officials for a 2002 attack on Hamas that had nothing to do with Spain, the country reversed itself, and has now decided to put a leash on their legal system to prevent abuse of “universal jurisdiction.”  This is a welcome development for the shrinking minority of those who cherish liberty more than unbridled “justice.”

The concept of universal jurisdiction is simple: it posits that courts in one nation have the legitimate power to prosecute anyone who commits something as severe as a war crime, even if the alleged crime occurred outside that nation’s borders and involved no one tied to that nation in any way. 

Amnesty International defends universal jurisdiction by arguing that some crimes (such as torture) are so heinous that anyone who commits them should not be able to find safe haven anywhere (I’ll let the readers comment on how this principle relates to amnesty).  Yet the concept of boundless jurisdiction ignores the plain fact that some legal systems are much fairer than others, and lectures by international bodies don’t cause corrupt judiciaries to reform.  Even in the same country, the makeup of court cases (including, but not limited to: differences in judges, juries, lawyers, and media coverage) can produce unpredictable results.  Under universal jurisdiction, anyone frivolously accused of certain grievous acts has a chance of being tried under a wide array of variously imperfect legal systems.   

Also, an untempered desire to make the world a better place will eventually compel someone to argue, “Why limit ourselves to such a narrow band of crimes?  Hate crimes are crimes against humanity.  Racism is a crime against humanity.  These should be under universal jurisdiction.”  Few things are more certain than the fact that if universal jurisdiction is ever fully implemented, one day some American conservative will be imprisoned overseas for joking about the ears on his local DMV’s bejeweled Barack Obama statue, possibly years after the fact. 

Spain demonstrated a remarkable respect for sovereignty by promising to scale back its legislative ambition.  The rest of the western world would be wise to follow suit. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Posted in Current Events | Comments Off

Last Friday I put together a list of the top six most annoying conservative subgroups, which didn’t sit well with some of my peers.  That’s o.k.; I didn’t start blogging to make people feel good about themselves.  Case in point: the following list of annoying liberal groups:  

#5 9/11 Truthers

I know not all conspiracy theories are leftist, but come on.  Has anyone witnessed a large anti-Iraq war protest that didn’t have a contingent of truthers waving more poster board than an arena full of pro wrestling fans?  Their major arguments are based on ambiguous photography, a half-educated grasp of engineering, and the government’s initial difficulty explaining exactly how two huge planes flying into two massive buildings caused a smaller building right beside them to collapse.   Yet the boring, somewhat complex reality of tragic events isn’t as satisfying to truthers as their own dramatic narrative.  The endurance and intelligence that goes into supporting these theories would be commendable if it wasn’t coupled with paranoid contrarianism. 

The truthers are not only annoying, but offensive.  Truthers, not “neocons,” politicized the most horrible tragedy in recent American history.  Instead of respecting the memory of 9/11’s victims, they use it as a springboard for self-indulgent activism.  I can barely tolerate the prospect of “investigating” what caused 9/11, but it would be hypocritical of me to deny the importance of dispassionate inquiry in the midst of emotional events.  Yet thoughtful curiosity isn’t what has leftist college students marching behind Republican crank Alex Jones (although after perusing his site, I’m more comfortable calling him  the kind of libertarian whose adolescent conspiracy fetish keeps sensible libertarians form becoming a viable third option).  9/11 truthers are simply in it for the attention, using the tragedy as a proxy to act out. 

The sad thing is half the truthers I meet cannot possibly believe 9/11 was an inside job, if only because they’re informed.  It seems to be something they say just to needle conservatives.  There is no “truth” behind the 9/11 Truther’s words, just a deep commitment to positing themselves on the opposite side of conventional wisdom.  Even Al Franken , whose political career has consisted primarily of calling Republicans liars, doesn’t buy into the conspiracy.  The fact that’s it’s impossible to tell the insincere sophists form the imbalanced true believers makes them especially irritating, earning them a spot on this list. 

Telling Phrase: “Selected, not elected!” (This doesn’t have anything to do with 9-11?  Well, neither does 9-11 trutherism).

Say something nice:  As a whole, they’re interesting people. 

#4 Europeans

Picture a vast group of people whose fundamental understanding of America comes from a half-educated knowledge of the young nation’s most damning history, coupled with western pop culture.  Despite their limited perspective, they’re certain of their opinions about America, and as a consequence have no ability to relate to American conservatives, whose worldview rests on an entirely different foundation.  Nothing about their approach to politics suggests that this will change in the foreseeable future.  No, it’s not college freshmen.  It’s not the entertainment industry.  It’s not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I just did them.  It’s not even Detroit’s citizens (God help them).  It’s Europeans. 

Europeans think Americans are lazy, uncouth, easily lead dullards, and when the candidate who doesn’t reflect European sensibilities wins an election that has nothing to do with them, they publish snooty headlines asking “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”  They’re right to say our media plays to the lowest common denominator, but this is coming from a continent where less than two-thirds of the population acknowledges that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11.  While 9/11 truthers are a vocal but rightly marginalized minority here, in Europe they’re prevalent enough to form their own party!

Even though the American right owes much to Europeans such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, Europe seems to have forgotten its libertarian heritage.  Elections on the other side of the Atlantic are usually choices between varied big-government nationalists and big-government internationalists.  To put it in American terms, modern Europe’s political spectrum spans from Joe Biden to Barack Obama.  Their phobia of successful businesses such as Wal-mart makes our most committed environmentalists anti-capitalists look sensible by comparison.  A British jury once acquitted six Greenpeace activists for the vandalism of a coal power plant, which cost 35,000 British pounds to clean up, because the threat of global warming gave them a “lawful excuse.”  We should expect no less from the continent that gave the world fascism, Nazism, and a generation of “youths” who apparently think rioting is a legitimate form of dissent. 

Europeans are on this list because all of the politically active Europeans I’ve met are leftist tits.

Telling phrase: “Americans are stupid. ” 

Say something nice:  Europe produces a lot of great Metal and techno music.  Henrik Zetterberg is my favorite active hockey player. 

#3 Aging feminist baby boomers

Stubborn, moralizing, and unteachable, old liberal women may be the hardest people in the world to engage in constructive dialogue.  It’s not that they’re incapable of it; it’s just that they don’t want to.  They’ve spent decades marinating in their self-absorbed liberal revolution, and all the charm and logical force in the world could not convince them of anything but what they want to believe.  As their lives are ending and their influence has been waning, the second wave of liberal feminism is collectively clinging to their perceived victimhood (which is paradoxically the foundation of their influence) despite evidence that women are doing all right in America. 

At its worst, feminism is a microcosm of liberalism’s biggest flaws.  It’s preoccupied with victimhood, it’s statist, and it’s emotive, rather than contemplative.   The corny chanting and curious affection for mostly redundant legislation that comes and goes among mainstream Democrats has always been prominent in the feminist movement. 

What earns old, liberal feminists a spot on this list is a personal as it is political.  In a country infested by a fair amount of terrorist sympathizers, eco-terrorists, and race baiters, I can’t think of a crowd more unpleasant than defensive, over-intellectualized suburbanites such as Maureen Dowd and Gloria Steinem.  If I were the list the ten most unpleasant experiences I’ve ever had, most of them would involve feminists.

Telling Phrase:  “That’s not funny.”

Say something nice:   Legal equality for women is a worthy ideal.  Americans should keep living up to it. 

#2 Teachers for social justice

There, I said it.  Teaching for social justice is the practice of conflating education with politicization.  It’s not good enough for some educators to raise self-sufficient, intelligent students; they have to be left-wing activists too.  Whether they’re teaching in middle schools or graduate seminars, anyone who “teaches for social justice” falls into this category.  Just to be safe, include those who administrate for social justice as well.  While a good education is an irreplaceable component of progress, not all educators are praise-worthy. 

Why I am being so hard on a certain segment of teachers, especially granted the fantastic job many of them do?  For starters, teachers for social justice insist that their trendy educational approach isn’t ideological, just a way to make students “ask questions” and “challenge their own assumptions.”  Take my word for it, they will ask you for an apology if you suggest otherwise.  Many of those in charge of informing an entire generation won’t even acknowledge that their own paradigm of race, sex, and class is firmly rooted in leftist political tradition.  To be fair, they probably never learned that in graduate school.      

If your profession supposedly calls on you to convince young minorities and women that society is dominated by white males, and bellicose activism is the only way they can experience modern-day emancipation, your profession is demanding that you become a political being.  If your overarching goal is to convince impressionable students that society is stacked against them, you’re only going to codify their worst fears, affirm their anger, and give credence to conspiratorial narratives.  Teaching for social justice doesn’t encourage students to open their minds and understand America as it really is.  No, it trains students to view society through a rigid, left-wing standpoint, inhibiting their understanding of everything that isn’t framed as such.  They’ll grow up and confuse conservative arguments concerning civil rights as racism and critiques of feminism as sexism, because they will have never been given the tools to understand it any other way.  In short, they’re making America more like the rest of this list. 

Don’t even get me started on their sense of entitlement.  For their truly hard work, public school teachers are paid more per hour than mechanical engineers, psychologists, chemists, and they only make 3% less than physicists.  Yet one cannot escape complaints about how they’re underpaid.  Then again, one shouldn’t expect gratitude from people who are put on a pedestal just for working with children.  The only other job as universally praised as education is a career in the military.  But everyone who joins the military is potentially risking their lives.  In addition, military training, in contrast to grad school, isn’t meant to boost soldier’s egos, but to humble them.  Perhaps the Secretary of Education should start running prospective teachers through boot camp. 

Drill sergeant:  “Face forward, Rainbow Brite.”

22-year old:  “Excuse me, but my name is…”

Drill Sergeant: “Your name is Rainbow Brite, and if you don’t like it, you can spend the rest of the day in the cafeteria preparing square pizza!” 

If you don’t believe that there are a core group of teachers who have allowed liberal politics to get in the way of their profession, consider that more than 4200 people, most of them educators, signed a petition in support of Bill Ayers, the self-satisfied domestic terrorist most Americans were introduced to in 2008.    Nothing in the petition they signed denies that he was part of a terrorist group; they just gloss it over because he serves a purpose.  

The most depressing part is that most of these folks are genuinely trying to make the world a better place.  But just because they’ve been professionally trained to irresponsibly collapse personal activism with what is ideally an objective profession doesn’t make them right. 

Telling Phrase:  “I have to teach from a multi-cultural perspective because students can get the white, male, Eurocentric point of view everywhere else.” 

Say something nice:  I have friends who are teachers for social justice, and they’re generally okay people. 

#1 Left-wing Evangelicals

“Not God bless America, but God Damn America.” Few things are more insulting than the premise that you’re not worthy in God’s eyes because you don’t adopt man’s earthly politics.  Everyone knows about the right’s religious elements, but if Americans learned about their own culture in school, they would understand the left’s religious heritage as well.  The reason left-wing evangelicals are #1 on this list isn’t due to their self-righteous ranting, which doesn’t distinguish them from their peers, but because without the Christian left, liberalism wouldn’t have such deep roots in American soil.  According to historian Daniel J. Flynn, the very first communist community on American soil were the pilgrims in Plymouth colony from 1620-1623, who were forced to abolish private property.  They were followed by numerous European imports, including the Shakers, Harmonists, and Owenites.  Long before the 1960’s, the evangelical left would rail against capitalism, “false consciousness,” and the traditional family.  Before the collapse of the U.S.S.R., these communities had already buckled under their economic ignorance and disregard for human nature. 

The control freakishness comedians frequently attribute to the religious right is actually common in all types of moral crusaders; the religious left is no exception.  Early twentieth century prohibition was a product of the puritanical Christian left.  It was the leftist book Bible Communism which insisted that “God the creator has the first and foremost right to all property” in 1848.  Today, multiculturalism and environmental regulation are often framed in religious terms.  The evangelical left is no less prone to cheap, obvious appeals to faith such as “Jesus was a community organizer,” which insults the intelligence of faithful people everywhere. 

For what it’s worth, I believe God’s a libertarian.  He allows us to mess up our own lives and communities without divine interference, knowing full well that we’ll all be judged in the end.  From war to high taxation, any coercion undertaken in God’s name should actually be credited to mankind.  Anything else would be to impose our will on God’s, and I think we can humbly presume he’s not keen on that. 

Telling Phrase: “Who would Jesus bomb?” 

Say something nice:  They have better things to do than sue people because a cross is mounted on a hill on public land. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative.

Tags: europeans, feminists, left-wing evangelicals, liberals, social justice, teachers, truthers
Posted in Fun stuff | No Comments »

Up until I was a junior in college, I had never heard of Ann Coulter until I saw her on CNN.  I thought she was a breath of fresh air—she shattered my then libertarian conviction that conservatives are joyless and preachy.  I was so intrigued that I picked up Slander, which in turn induced my fascination with conservatism.  I don’t want to know what that says about me. 

So I brought the book home in between semesters and told my mother, the Democrat, all about it.  Mom isn’t belligerent, like Keith Olbermann, nor is she smug, like Rachel Maddow.  She was just born a Democrat, and has remained loyal to her party.  I respect that—she’s my mother!  Being my mother and knowing I liked Slander so much, she insisted on picking up Treason the day it was released.  It started a tradition where Mom buys me every new Ann Coulter book as a “surprise” gift.  Just like every other program which depends on Democrats to provide for certain needs, this has proven to be inefficient. 

Remember when Coulter released Godless and the media subtly suggested that she had attacked all 9-11 widows for two weeks?  I couldn’t watch coverage of it or discuss it with my friends because I wanted to read the book first, and Mom didn’t get it to me until the following July (Godless was released on 6-6-06).  Similarly, I had to sit out the hand-wringing over Coulter’s chapter on single mothers in Guilty because Mom was waiting for my last Christmas present to arrive before shipping all of them in bulk to me.  That’s why I’m blogging about it today. 

I’m only a chapter into Guilty, and it’s the most fun I’ve had reading an Ann Coulter hardcover since Treason.  If it doesn’t come unraveled, it will be one of her three best books, alongside Treason and Slander.   Coulter is at her best when she has the discipline to write around a coherent theme.  Slander is about media bias; Treason is about the left’s bizarre sympathy for ideas and cultures antagonistic to traditional American values, such as communism and the societies which embrace it.  Concordantly, Coulter is at her worst when she strings mostly unrelated one-liners around a very loose theme (as she did in Godless), or doesn’t even pretend to have an overarching subject.  I’m in no place to criticize such an established conservative writer, but I worry that she’s been mailing it in for a few years. 

I’m now cautiously optimistic about Ms. Coulter.  Guilty seems to be a return to her best form.  Not only has she produced a tome united around a clear theme, but that theme, the idealization of victimhood, is worth bringing attention to.  Victimhood has been abused as a status symbol for a long time, and it’s nice to see Coulter drag that into the light.  In Guilty, Coulter echoes Camille Paglia, who railed hard against feminist victim ideology right around the time Bill Clinton was first inaugurated.  Although it must be noted that Ann’s far glibber than Camille. 

From the introduction, Guilty promises to condemn the exploitation of victimhood, including exaggerated claims, fake hate crimes (which the right isn’t immune from), and linguistic gymnastics that would intimidate Natasha Liukin.  Coulter even takes it step further by arguing that victim ideology creates real victims, such as those whose good will is being taken advantage of by fabricated claims of abuse.  Give me a weekend and I’ll let you know if Coulter’s brand new (to me) book closes as strong as it opens. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Coulter, Guilty
Posted in Belated book reviews | No Comments »

I just got Ann Coulter’s new book.  I always get Coulter’s books late.  I’ll explain later when I give my first impressions of it. 

I see that Forbes has listed Arianna Huffington as the second most influential liberal in the U.S. media.  She’s an immensely talented writer, if one can get past her trademark hectoring tone.  But #2?  By all accounts, Arianna’s smart, but her eloquence and wit can’t mask her silly, indiscriminate denunciations of all things Republican (“…Thursday night’s valedictory speech was quintessential Bush: delusional from beginning to end”) nor can it prevent her from succumbing to callow sentimentality (the day before Obama’s swearing in, she commented: “…we are all being inaugurated tomorrow”).

If Arianna Huffington is the second most influential liberal in the media, there’s more hope for conservatives than I thought (or less hope for Americans, depending on your point of view).

Andrew Warren, the CIA station chief in Algeria (a country almost entirely made up by Sunni Muslims, which won’t help on the geopolitical front), is being investigated for allegations that he drugged and raped at least two Muslim women.  Helping provide intelligence on al Qaeda in Algeria may be brave, but it doesn’t excuse sexual assault.  Warren should be brought to trail, and if he’s guilty, he should be severely punished. 

Sadly, this is being politicized as it unfolds.  This story is starting to be molded in some circles (including the respected, but occasionally hyperbolic Huffington Post) as a commentary on yet another “ugly American.”  But rape isn’t American or even nationalistic; to suggest otherwise demonstrates an unhealthy anxiety about the nature of my countrymen.  Warren’s alleged behavior is a symptom of his own moral failure; he didn’t assimilate the prevailing belief (at least in the west) that rape is something a man shouldn’t ever commit.  It does not suggest to rational people than Americans routinely behave as he’s alleged to.  Sadly, this may generate anti-American repercussions anyway, precisely because rational isn’t a word I would use to describe most human beings. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

DCCC must be the roman numerals for “zero.”  The left-wing advocacy group has heard some of Rush Limbaugh’s recent remarks and is claiming that Rush hopes that “President Obama fails to meet America’s challenges.”  They even started a petition against Limbaugh for attacking Obama.  For anyone who’s interested, here’s the DCCC page where anyone can sign the petition and say anything they want to Mr. Limbaugh. 

You may have already heard Limbaugh’s actual words: “I want Obama to fail,” followed by a complete lack of context.  Isolated, the radio personality’s comment suggests that he wants America’s economy to flounder and its’ citizens to suffer so miserably they’ll never vote Democrat again, or something along those lines.  Coming from such an influential figure, these sentiments would be terrible if only they were true. 

From watching this video, it’s clear that Rush is merely saying that he doesn’t want Obama to succeed in enacting a far-left agenda, which would be disastrous for America.  Sadly, it isn’t being taken that way by Obama’s supporters, who seem more interested in demonizing a long-hated figure than reaching for perspective. 

This may be my biggest pet peeve.  I don’t mind when I’m criticized for the things I actually say and mean; I mind when I’m misrepresented and end up taking flack on the basis of that misrepresentation.  Likewise, Rush Limbaugh is being hated for spreading messages he didn’t spread.  The idea that he wants Obama to fail in making America prosperous is slanderous. 

A younger version of me would have trolled liberal blogs, taunting the left about their emotionalism.  But that doesn’t do a whole lot of good in the real world.  So instead I contacted the DCCC.  I made it a point to be polite and let them know they’re making a mountain out a molehill.  I don’t expect the organization to care, but I’ve been surprised in the past by how some of the most far-left groups have responded to me after I let them know I was writing to approach them, rather than attack them.  Here’s the note I sent, which pretty much summarizes what I just wrote:

I am writing in good faith, not to insult you.  (The best way to deal with strangers is to first extend an olive branch).

In your petition against Rush Limbaugh, you’ve taken his words out of context to mean that he wants America to fail under Obama.  But it’s clear in his interview on Hannity (the source of his comments) that he means he wants Obama to fail in enacting (these are Limbaugh’s words) a “far-left agenda.”

Please take note of this before continuing your current campaign. 

I don’t imagine my words will do any good, but at least I can pretend I’m empowered. 

Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Hi, my name is Afghan Whig; my friends call me Tony.  For some reason, I’ve been invited to cross-blog my posts right here at The Sword and the Olive Branch on Modern Conservative.  From what I can tell, I’m now playing a small, small part in perhaps the most ambitious conservative project I’ve come across.  Thanks for the opportunity.  

Like a certain type of offender who must go door to door when he moves into a new neighborhood, I have to disclose a few things up front. 

Firstly, I’m a bit of a polemicist.   I have my Ann Coulter moments (the latest being that last analogy) and I’m going to have more.  As long as it’s tactical and habitual, outrageousness is a useful tool.  This doesn’t mean I’m going to lose myself in a profanity-laced, Amanda Marcotte-like rant, but I’m going to be colorful. 

Secondly, I don’t think I’m center-right, the way Modern Conservative views itself; I think I’m at least two standard deviations to the right of G.W. Bush.  I don’t know what that means in this community, so let me say I’m not a Bircher; I like having good faith debates with moderates and even liberals, and I’m not drawn to silly fantasies about Barack Obama’s birth certificate.  I’m as conservative as anyone I know, but that doesn’t make me unapproachable or insane.  But don’t take me at my word.  Let me demonstrate it in my future posts. 

Thirdly, I’m new at this blogging thing.  I really just started last week, and I still can’t find the spot on my style sheet which makes my links on The Sword and the Olive Branch default to a way too subtle shade of green.   Oh, and my grammar’s terrible. In fact, I better hurry up and post as much as I can at ModCon Central before Chris notices that. 

Finally, it’s been brought to my attention that 2600-word posts on things such as the meaning of the word “liberalism” aren’t normal.  Apparently the blogging style is short and sweet.  I’m not going to stop posting essays (I love writing them; they’re a large reason I started blogging) but for the sake of my readers, I’ll keep them from running loose.

Other than that, I think I’ll make a good neighbor. 

Talk to you later,

-Afghan Whig

Cross-posted at ModernConservative.com

Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »

This garbage.  Apparently Nancy Pelosi strongly supports the idea of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control as an economic control.  I understand the logic.  One of the biggest obstacles to wealth is having children before marriage.  But it’s not my responsibility to pay for someone else’s bad judgment.  Yet this is only the first of many problems with Pelosi’s vision. 

While it doesn’t look like it’s going to make it through, the idea of birth control becoming a national economic concern, to be treated with mechanical contraception, as opposed to a personal matter, best dealt with through family and community, is creepy.  But it makes sense from a purely economic perspective.  The less people are living in a society, the easier it is to allocate a finite amount of resources (it’s funny how this never comes up when liberals discuss illegal immigration).  It’s a sign of the times that Americans are abandoning their own alleged principals in an eerily socialistic obsession with material goods (capitalists are preoccupied with property rights; socialists are preoccupied with property). 

America is being sucked back into the 1930’s, where economic matters pushed moral concerns out of the public eye.  On one hand, this is helpful.  The focus on our fragile economy has pushed the left’s moral crusades, most notably environmentalism, far down America’s collective list of concerns.  Unfortunately, the same force that finally muffled the earth tones has also degraded the importance Americans place on illegal immigration, crime, and general morality.  I don’t think we’re a financial meltdown away from a Chinese “one-child” policy, but given the growing lack of concern with moral issues, it wouldn’t surprise me, either. 

Don’t get me wrong, economics matter; even before it was recognized as a school of thought, the allocation of resources has profoundly affected every community that’s inhabited the earth.  It’s great that American citizens recognize how important the economy is.  But even more fundamental to the well-being of humanity are moral concerns.  That this may sound fanatical in the current political climate scares me. 

Nevertheless, the argument that morality is more important as economics isn’t a polemical claim.  What good are riches if a citizenry isn’t honest, faithful, or even peaceful?  What good is a well-run society if it doesn’t respect free will?  If a suspension of human dignity is what takes to get the trains running on time, then damn the trains.  The Matrix appears to be a fantastically efficient society, but I don’t see humans climbing into pods and plugging themselves into a bioelectric grid. 

You might say, “Who cares about things like abortion when unemployment is going up and more families can’t pay their rent?  How can morality make my family more secure”?  The answer is that it can’t, at least not directly.  But if society is willing to disregard moral boundaries in the name of economic security, it’s only a matter of time before it ignores constitutional boundaries as well.  A nation wholly preoccupied with wealth won’t be concerned about term limits or whether or not Daddy spends months in jail for undermining El Presidente’s master plan.  There’s a reason communist societies aren’t free; communism’s totalistic concern with economic matters leaves little room for anything else. 

Just like most Americans, I want the economy to come back to life.  I just don’t want see my nation’s moral and political heritage atrophy while we’re all waiting for that to happen.    

Tags: economy, morality, Pelosi
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Of course conservatives should be able to criticize one another. 

I got my first two complaints the other day.  Surprisingly they were both written by self-identified conservatives (I need to start leaving my URL on progressive blogs).  It turns out they were rubbed the wrong way by my list of annoying conservative subgroups, specifically the part about “intellectual elitists.”  Apparently not everyone sees the humor in lines such as: “It’s nice to see that Ann Coulter is getting airtime LISP! but better specimens SLURP! of conservative thought LISP! could be chosen.”  Politely but tersely, I was accused of arguing that any conservative who criticizes another right-winger is being disloyal.  I was also chided for ignoring the value of education.  I think it’s clear that I wasn’t doing either of those things, but since I was contacted in good faith, I should handle these comments in good faith.   

Getting right to the point, my entire post was a critique of a broad array of conservatives, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to lambaste right-wingers for being critical of their own.  I don’t mind that some conservatives share legitimate concerns about Ann Coulter.   I myself am no fan of her tendency to be glib rather than forthcoming in her interviews, and her occasional schoolyard taunts, such as “raghead” and “faggot,” are irritating.   But I don’t criticize her the way conservative elitists do, by (1) assuming intellectual superiority, and (2) using language crafted to appeal to Coulter’s liberal opponents (EX: calling her “hateful” when she’s merely being crude).  These two tendencies are what I have in mind when I mock intellectual elitists, not mere criticism.

While I don’t doubt the value of higher education (I try to bury my nose in a book every day) I strongly disapprove of conservatism’s elitist strain, which seems to be related to the status education bestows a person.  I’ve actually read a line much like the “better specimens of conservative thought” comment I typed above.  There was an air of condescending self-promotion to it that stuck with me.  Why did the writer need to qualify his statement by taking a cheap shot at his subject?  Telling a conservative they can be a better thinker is something a mentor should do in a classroom or in private, not something an arrogant peer should do in a public forum.  Treating your conservative peers as if they were younger siblings betrays a lack of respect and dignity which deserves to be lampooned at the very least. 

A recent example of this is an opinion piece by Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman.  Here he criticizes the Republican Party’s conflation of small government with limited government, all the while making the case the Ronald Reagan wouldn’t belong in today’s GOP.  So far, so good.  But then he calls today’s Republicans “Anti-intellectual,” and cites Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove of not representing a conservative party, but rather one bent on the “narrow pursuit of power.”  While a good argument can be made that Bush isn’t all that conservative and Rove may be more conniving than normal, Newt-Gingrich is a right-wing egghead.  He’s neither anti-intellectual nor disloyal to conservative principles.  Mr. Edwards has tips his hand with Gingrich’s inclusion; it shows that he’s not taking aim at anti-intellectualism, but unpopular conservatives.  This is what I mean by intellectual elitism.  His article is conservative, smart, but fundamentally disloyal.  He could have easily made his point without tossing these five figures under the bus, but he didn’t.  In fact, he followed that by parroting the jejune cliché that today’s conservatives have turned to the politics of exclusion and division.  I wonder if he was paying attention when Reagan joked about bombing the Soviet Union.   

I wholly embrace the idea that conservatives should criticize each other.  Without internal criticism, we’d be vulnerable to groupthink.  Even worse, if we don’t evaluate our own arguments, liberals will do it for us, and they’re far less likely to treat them fairly.  But we can do this without looking down on our peers or borrowing the left’s cheap rhetoric.  The fact this isn’t self-evident is troubling. 

Tags: ann coulter, loyalty, mickey edwards
Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »

Via Cracked.com, a giggle from Daisy Owl. 

Another Day Ruined by PETA.

Posted in Fun stuff | No Comments »

WHY WE’RE LIBERALS

A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America

By Eric Alterman

402 pages. The Viking Press. 2008.

The Arrogance of the Intellectual Left.

While I was browsing through the Social Sciences section of the small airport bookstore the other day, something caught my eye. It wasn’t a new polemic by Ann Coulter. Nor was it a judicious Dinesh D’Souza tome. It wasn’t the instant classic Liberal Fascism, I already owned that one. No, what grabbed my imagination was a book by the leftist intellectual Eric Alterman, titled Why We’re Liberals. After some internal dialogue with my inner demons, I agreed with them that I would buy the book on the condition that I buy a conservative title as well—a sort of a self-imposed tax on bad behavior. That and I like seeing the look on certain stranger’s faces when they spot the smiling face of Ronald Reagan on my prominently displayed book cover. It’s more effective than wearing a t-shirt that says “eff you.”

Anyway, the conservative book isn’t anything I hadn’t read before, but Alterman’s book has proven to be a valuable addition to my collection. It’s an intelligent, well-written insight into the minds of liberals. The title effectively conveys the book’s content, a broad description of liberal values. This isn’t as common on the left as one might think. Because conservatives tend to be self-conscious about their place on the political spectrum, right-wing accounts of American conservatism’s short history come a dime a dozen. In contrast, the left tends to deny their intellectual heritage, so finding a good book written by a liberal who has actually acknowledged the simple nature of his politics excited me.

Another plus is that it was written by Eric Alterman, a formidable thinker. It would be easy to refute or even dismiss a long attempt to defend liberalism if it were written by one of the left’s worst elements. It’s easy to sit back and laugh at the arguments posited by attention-starved perpetrators of fake hate crimes, the underdeveloped personalities who insist that 9-11 was an inside job, and eagerly fascistic animal rights activists who commit everything from vandalism to arson to get their point across. But just because these types of people can be found on the left doesn’t mean they represent it, much less the best liberalism has to offer. Conversely, Professor Alterman is smart, articulate, and most importantly not prone to emotionalism or counterintuitive conspiracy theories. In short, he’s an excellent representative for the left. Because he’s “normal,” the flaws in his argument will more likely reflect flaws in liberal philosophy, as opposed to his character.

Whether or not it ever catches on with the public, Alterman’s 2008 book is a definitive work. It’s an intelligent exposition of the modern liberal mind, warts and all. As much as any all-encompassing right-wing handbook, Why We’re Liberals directly communicates the logic behind the left’s ideals. Rarely are political writers as forthcoming about their motives without descending into boorish polemics. So without any further adieu, let’s see those gears turning.

Part I: The Definition of Liberalism.

Before discussing a book whose central theme is liberalism, one must understand what the word actually means. But for all that is holy, don’t ask a liberal that. If he doesn’t bedevil you with a laborious speech about labels, he’ll lazily pronounce that liberalism is too philosophically broad to be identified. Others will be even worse, self-righteously proclaiming that liberalism means caring about minorities and poor people. Often they suggest substituting the word “liberal” with “progressive.” This is fine, but it ignores the fact that “progressive” has more stridently left-wing connotations than “liberal.” Joseph Stalin was definitively not a liberal, but he just as certainly was progressive. In general, liberals don’t seem to like conceding that they’re part of a recognizable group. Like someone running from a police officer for no apparent reason, they curiously evade the word that describes them as if it were a pejorative.

In Why We’re Liberals, Alterman spends a good part of the introduction giving a bare-bones description of the roots of liberalism, while eventually defining it as a pragmatic quest for justice, a definition I imagine most left-leaning intellectuals wouldn’t take issue with. But a desire to achieve justice through reason isn’t a philosophy as much as it’s a vague mission statement. Neither pragmatism nor a sense of justice is exclusively liberal.

To put it another way, I could describe conservatism as a quest to preserve life, liberty, and property, but that’s not a school of thought, that’s a wish that can be interpreted countless ways. To greatly simplify the right’s core philosophy, conservatism is a blend of libertarian individualism tempered by traditional morality. It’s not a definition that sits well with all self-identified conservatives, but it does describe in one sentence the foundation of the right. Finding a liberal correlation to that would give Americans a much needed toe-hold on the meaning of liberalism.

Fortunately, Alterman provides something close to that. He describes liberalism as roughly a combination of “rights-based” liberalism and communitarianism. “Classical liberalism” might be a better term than “rights-based liberalism,” but they both connote the same thing: an ideology which stresses freedom from coercion. The ideals which inform the classical left include, among others, an emphasis on limited government, a deep respect for private property, and an animus toward the welfare state. Whenever Benito Mussolini or Mao Tse Tung decried liberalism, this is what they were combating.

In contrast, communitarianism stresses positive rights, rights to things such as education or health care. Often positive rights are alluded to as “agency,” or “power.” From a communitarian perspective, the right to pursue happiness uninhibited by the state is less important than ensuring that everyone is being provided the means to do so. The communitarian side of liberalism has defined the modern era. From the New Deal on, the right to something has been emphasized far more successfully on the left than individual autonomy. This isn’t to say at all that liberals don’t respect individual rights. Self-styled individualists of all kinds have found refuge in liberalism (Nat Hentoff is a voracious defender of free speech) they’re just not as persuasive as the advocates for positive rights.

While faithful conservative philosophy tends to oppose governmental intervention as a rule, the communitarian-dominated left tends to hold political power in high esteem. This leads to one of the most fundamental differences between the left and the right; conservatives deplore government-sponsored injustice in the name of human rights (the Iraq War being a radical exception) while liberals usually consider the price of governmental intervention worth paying to sate an always changing sense of justice. Affirmative action is a great example of this. Conservatives believe the concept of state-sponsored racial distinctions is too harmful to accept, while liberals are much more concerned with the steps toward healing racial injustice AA represents that any of its potential abuses.

A plethora of similar examples can be used to illustrate this dichotomy, including the distinct right-left splits over sexual harassment law, environmentalism, and health care. But conservatism and liberalism are not irreconcilable. I’ve been guilty in the past of positing liberalism and conservatism on opposite poles, but I’ve learned that the left and right indeed converge on the axis of free will. Like puzzle pieces, the libertarian side of conservatism snugly interlocks with “rights-based” classical liberalism.

Human beings share a universal aversion to coercion; Citizens on both sides of the middle intuitively know that dignity cannot exist without free will. This manifests itself on the right as a naked distrust of the overbearing state, and on the left as a rebellion against traditional norms. Both of these are libertarian impulses. In fact, freedom from hectoring do-gooders, whether they represent a government or a community, makes up the core of libertarianism. This explains why libertarian publications such as Reason magazine reliably criticize both the left and the right. America’s true political spectrum doesn’t have Ronald Reagan at one end and FDR at the other. Instead it has traditional morality on the far right and progressive communitarianism on the far left, with libertarianism as the median. The average American falls somewhere in between Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich.

But all of this distracts from the main debate, the meaning of liberalism. Plainly put, what is it? What distinguishes a liberal from everyone else? What one definition encompasses the political left and all of its many factions, while leaving out everything else?

At the risk of sounding glib, the foundation of liberalism is quite simple: an attachment to comprehensive social engineering. To explain what I mean, mandatory sensitivity classes are liberal in nature; they’re attempts to turn callous individuals into conscientious citizens. Global warming treaties intended to preserve planet Earth from nebulous threats by nothing less than remaking how all industries relate to the environment are liberal in nature. So are campus speech codes which are meant to preserve a right to a peaceful academic environment (a positive right). So is using the classroom to make a world a better place through political activism. So are Canadian and European laws which effectively make it illegal to criticize Islam, as seen most publically in cases brought against Maclean’s magazine in Canada and Oriana Fallaci in Italy. While few liberals support each of these efforts (as well as similar ones) none will eschew them all. It wouldn’t be accurate to describe liberalism as an injudicious desire for change, but the solemn conviction that something needs to change can be found in all leftist ideas.

Here we come to the important realization that justifying government intervention for the greater good is perfectly compatible with liberalism. If the left is about anything, it’s about using the state to correct injustice. A liberal solution to high gas prices may involve nationalizing the oil industry. One liberal remedy for conservative dominance of talk radio would be to reconsider the fairness doctrine. While liberalism isn’t inherently in favor of an overbearing state, it certainly recognizes that courts and laws have an unmatched ability to affect change. To the left, the state is neither good nor bad; it’s just a powerful tool that can be used to achieve social justice.

Objections to liberalism often come from confusion over its intended scope. Since “justice” has never been responsibly and consistently defined, its boundaries are always in flux. Take America’s albatross of racial conflict. What constitutes justice for America’s past crimes of slavery and institutional discrimination? Is justice equality? If so, what kind of equality? Equality of status? Equality of opportunity? Equality under the law? What about reparations? Is affirmative action a step towards or away from justice? These often uneasy questions have never been settled, making it difficult for Americans to discern between appropriate and inappropriate resentment towards liberal social policies.

This confusion touches issues much less flammable than racism. As the left-wing emphasis on justice is applied to gender equality, poverty, and a slew of other topics, it shows that the left is mired in a hopeless metaphysical debate over the meaning of “justice.” This quagmire not only affects what justice is purported to entail, but who for. Feminists, who by their political nature insist that more attention be given to women’s grievances, won’t necessarily be concerned with the Hamas’ objectives. Likewise, the militants in Hamas, deeply concerned with bringing Israel to “justice,” may not care at all about women’s rights. On top of that, civil rights leaders may or may not take up the mantle for either of these causes, but will always be focused most on racial justice. After taking into account the influence of environmentalists, animal rights activists, anti-war activists, and a slew of other groups, I now understand why liberals don’t think they’re a definable class. That doesn’t mean feminists, Palestinian rights organizations, civil rights groups and all two thousand of their other cousins aren’t leftist in nature.

Liberalism is a collage. Ideologies such as feminism are distinct from but not alternative to liberalism. For better or worse, all left-wing groups propose giving more power to the state to bring about a just society. Feminism, as one can observe how easily feminists pick up the picket signs for environmentalists, animal rights activists, and seemingly all other left-wing groups, is just gynocentric liberalism. Communitarian minority-rights movements are just ethnocentric forms of liberalism, and so on. Their similar foundations explain why victims rights movements collapse together so easily on the left.

Yet the left’s sense of justice has a single prerequisite: they will only support a victim of injustice if that victim can claim some sort of underdog status. For reasons that may be psychological or personal or simply out of the scope of this essay, liberalism cannot bring itself to defend anything but an underdog. When’s the last time you got the impression that defending America against the international community was a priority for liberals? The left wing narrative insists that Americans and certain demographic groups within America are bullies, and deserve a taste of their own medicine. Conservatives, who are seen as powerful, rich, elitists to liberals, will never find camaraderie on the left no matter how much evidence of media or academic bias they collect.

Even individual conflicts, such as the infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial, are framed by the hard left as group conflicts—a fearful white establishment dedicated to ruining a successful black man. This explains the left’s insistence that our group identity is so integral to our overall character. Without group distinctions, there are no classes of “victims” and “oppressors.” Take away the “us versus them” dichotomy, and injustice becomes a much more evasive and frustrating opponent, one that is too elusive to rally strangers against.

So now we have come, practically via osmosis, to a definition of liberalism: A rational quest for justice for a group or individual perceived to be disadvantaged (heavy emphasis on “perceived”). In this context, “rational” means unbound by tradition; the freedom to go with any social program that works, ala FDR. What makes liberalism diverse isn’t a mythical inclusiveness that defies all meaning, but discernable variations of degree and focus within left-wing activism. Every single left-winger wants to rectify a perceived wrong, but countless definitions of justice proliferate among the left’s coalition of the handicapped and their spokesmen.

By the way, the animal rights movement fits in this framework thorough the personification of inhuman entities. If cattle, dogs, and all other animals occupy the same moral plane as humans, our treatment of them would certainly count as unjust. Environmentalism finds a niche on the left by correctly claiming that whatever threatens the earth threatens all humanity. This weds environmental justice to social justice—anyone who abuses the Earth is abusing the community.

Finally, with this under our belt, we can move on to Professor Alterman’s book.

Part 1   Part 2    Part 3   Part 4

Tags: alterman, liberalism
Posted in Belated book reviews, Essays | No Comments »

I thought I was done with my first week of blogging, but after a loooong day at work, this made me smile: 

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/01/i-am-look-for-the-job.html

This one from December is even better!

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/12/senora-kennedy-is-make-very-good-senator.html 

You have good weekend!  I will make sleep now.

Posted in Fun stuff | No Comments »

Be honest, fellow conservatives, there are some right-wingers who are so irritating and/or disloyal we wish they were liberals.  It happens.  Usually they’re acquaintances who talk way too much.  But out of politeness or strategy, we avoid calling them out on it.  Sooner or later we’re going to have to suck it up and trim the fat from our ranks.  Please allow me to get the ball rolling.

#6 Libertarians

I have to mention up front that I love libertarianism; I was introduced to politics through a libertarian-feminist perspective.  Frankly, libertarianism is invaluable because it’s what gives American conservatism its unique flavor.  In a desperate situation, I would go to war to make America’s two-party system one that sets libertarians against classical conservatives.  Last but not least, libertarians don’t have any hang-ups about outrageously mocking liberals; they’re willing to do the jobs polite republicans won’t do. 

But with that being said, there’s one thing about so many libertarians that make them freaking insufferable.   They’re obsessed with the religious right!  Like John Goodman relating everything to Vietnam in The Big Lebowski, libertarians are liable to turn a conversation about cabbage into a rant against Pat Robertson.  I imagine more than one libertarian thinks that thousands of Jerry Falwell clones are waiting for us to fall asleep so they can sweep in like a thief in the night and swap every packet of birth control pills with sugar pills, only to hector us with scripture when we confront them about it.  Never mind that real Christians, just like libertarians, come in all kinds.  Some of them are moralizing jerks; that doesn’t indict the whole group.    

Anytime Republicans are in a bind, libertarians rush to tell us that we should stop catering to the religious right; we should quit prattling about abortion like misogynistic theocrats.  When one points out the libertarians’ manifest ecclesiophobia, they claim they don’t hate religion, just “organized religion.”  Bullcrap.  Religious people are a convenient target.  The easiest way to get cheap accolades from intellectuals is to argue that seriously religious people are hypocrites/authoritarians/science-hating luddites; even high schoolers know this.  What?  You think Marilyn Manson was popular for his looks? 

Don’t even get me started on their conspiracy theories.  Or the fact seemingly every road sign in San Diego was slapped with a “Ron Paul 2008” sticker during the last election cycle. 

Telling phrase:  “What you really need to do is throw out the fundamentalists.”

How to deal with libertarians:  Pick their brains; they’re generally smart, observant people.  Just be ready to cut your losses the moment you brush across the slightest reference to abortion or stem-cell research. 

#5 Intellectual elitists

By this, I don’t necessarily mean educated rightists, but arrogant ones.  The all too common type of guy who minored in political science ten years ago and still acts as if his knowledge is exponentially larger than yours is an intellectual elitist.  His mastery of presidential anecdotes and useless trivia such as the origin of the Republican Party’s elephant mascot overinflates his ego.  But his preening isn’t nearly as annoying as his willingness to exploit controversial conservatives like a vulture.  A conservative elitist will throw Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, and even you under the bus to make his self look wise in comparison. 

The difference between an elitist and a RINO is that elitists are genuinely conservative, but nevertheless disloyal.  By all accounts, William Kristol is a steadily conservative man, but his willingness to accuse John McCain’s conservative opponents of throwing “temper tantrums” betrays how he sees himself in relation to common republicans.  One conservative no one has heard of has attempted to ride Ann Coulter’s coat-tails by accusing her of hate speech while passing out pamphlets calling her an “acid-tongued blond” one year at the Conservative Political Action Conference.  I would like to point out that it’s possible to criticize loyal conservatives without snarky self-promotion, but elitists are smart enough to know that; they just don’t care.  This ultimately makes their behavior that much more annoying. 

Telling phrase:  “It’s nice to see that Ann Coulter is getting airtime LISP! but better specimens SLURP! of conservative thought LISP! could be chosen.”

How to deal with intellectual elitists:  Insist that you’re just as smart and thoughtful as they are.  Then demonstrate it.  They’ll either begrudgingly tolerate your opinion or go away. 

#4 Racists who think their bigotry makes them conservative

Many racists think they have a friend in the conservative movement.  If one were to ask these bigots who they’re voting for, they would likely state the republican candidate if only because they’re presumably against affirmative action, too.  The fact that Lincoln’s party freed the slaves, pissing off the south for generations, seems to be lost on them.  Yet even though the Republican Party is not courting the racist vote, racists imagine they relate to us.  I can proudly say they have no grounds to. 

Racism isn’t conservative on any level.  It isn’t libertarian.  It isn’t consistent with an enduring moral order, because the ideal of universal morality depends on judging others by their behavior, not their ancestry.  At least in modern America, it’s not rooted in tradition; Racism as a custom was rejected in the states a long time ago; if that wasn’t the case, Don Imus wouldn’t have been fired for saying something that sounded racist.  It isn’t based on the wisdom of generations past, which have learned the lessons of racial favoritism.  It’s not prudent, nor is it marked by affection for variety, both of which are timeless themes in conservative thought.

Even though nothing about conservatism even suggests inherent racism, conservatives have enough problems being called racists by liberals, who don’t need evidence to perceive bigotry.  Even genial rightists such as Ronald Reagan are routinely branded as racists by the left.  Because of that, the first step anyone on the right must take when reaching out to any minority community is to demonstrate in some way that we’re not a subtle extension of the KKK.  Every single American we meet needs to be convinced on some level that our opposition to reparations, et al. is not rooted in hatred for African Americans.  Racist losers who call themselves conservative only make it easier for other groups of losers to “prove” we’re pining for a pure, white America. 

If it seems as if I’m kicking a dead horse, I didn’t think there were a significant number of these people until I moved to California and became acquainted with greater Los Angeles.  L.A. is littered by a fair number of groups that have little to zero influence in Iowa: Skinheads, self-described Aryans, and the like.  Politically, the city is stuck in 1968, where everything is so racialized that callous bigotry seems to be the only alternative to backwoods ethnic communitarianism.  This creates tension between blacks, whites, Latinos, and less prevalent minorities.  If anything bad ever happens to President Obama, stay out of L.A. (especially you truck drivers) because the results will certainly be interpreted through racial animus. 

Telling Phrase: “I don’t hate black people, I hate ni–ers.”

How to deal with racists who think their bigotry makes them conservative:  Stay out of Valencia. 

#3 Populists

Temperamentally opposite from elitists, populists have an annoying habit of fixating on an otherwise pure conservative’s not-so-conservative transgressions.  They seem to apply the “one-drop” rule to ideological apostasy.  Thus a conservative who supports free markets, stands strongly behind the traditional family, takes a hard line on crime, supports school vouchers, opposes gas taxes, but is ambivalent on abortion and moderate on gun control would be jeered by populists as a fake.

Particularly irritating are a strain of populists known as “Huckabites.”  Mike Huckabee is good man.  From what I can tell, he’s sincere, honest, and a great campaigner.  His speech at the 2008 GOP convention was arguably the event’s second best to Sarah Palin’s energizing masterpiece.  I didn’t resent him or any of his supporters until Huckabee went all populist on Mitt Romney, the most competent (if occasionally tone-deaf) conservative running for his party’s nomination in 2008, and whined that he didn’t want Romney to buy the election.   Never mind that the National Review correctly identified Romney as “the most conservative viable candidate” in 2007.

On top of that, every so often Huckabee’s populist supporters would come out and threaten to vote for someone other than John McCain if he selected Romney for his V.P.  Like a bitter divorcee with thousands of lawyers, the green-eyed Huckabites dogged Romney at every turn, effectively sabotaging his ascendance in the Republican Party.   One can only conclude they did it out of spite because it was obvious to everyone in America that Huckabee’s massive support among Southern evangelicals was diffused by the rest of the country’s equally prevalent contempt for Southern evangelicals—McCain would have been crazy to select Huck as a running mate.  Either that or someone should let conservative populists know that the good preacher is the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich: ideologically consistent, but fundamentally unelectable.

I may be venting.  Romney was my favorite candidate last year.

Telling Phrase:  “Romney is a phony.” 

How to deal with populists:  Let them know you respect their conservative perspective.  Demand the same in return.

#2 RINOs

You knew they had to be on this list.  RINOS are Republicans In Name Only.  It describes registered Republicans who are pro-choice, anti-war, and supportive of suffocating environmental regulation, but for some reason or another, they think their values align them with the traditionally right-wing party.  They’ve been spotted all over America, but most anthropologists think they’re indigenous to the Northeast and upper Midwest.  They differ from intellectual elitists in that (1) they’re not really conservative and (2) they’re not necessarily educated. 

What’s frustrating about RINOs isn’t that they deviate from classical conservatism, but their tendency to use the left’s hateful rhetoric when doing so.  They’ll oppose tax cuts as “tax cuts for the rich,” and will fight libertarians all the way to the front of the line when it comes to denouncing the religious right.  RINOs are the bisexuals of the conservative movement.  They want to be aligned with the party symbolically associated with tradition and patriotism, but they also want the cheap camaraderie that comes from calling conservatives bad names.  Experts have debated whether or not this is inherent to their species or an environmental adaptation needed to survive among sensitive suburbanites. 

Telling Phrases:  “Talk radio is running America.” 

“I’m Republican, but not that Republican.”

How to deal with RINOS:  Pretend they’re moderate Democrats and use them to practice your debate skills. 

#1 Actual Republican officials

Imagine you’re unhappy with the direction you local GOP officials are taking your community.  So you take the time to mail them, leave a message at their office, or even join their campaign.  Imagine, either through chance or hard work, finally meeting your official Republican Representative.  Imagine politely and eloquently airing your concerns about the party’s support for amnesty or some other issue close to the heart.  Now picture them reciting the line that political parties are volunteer organizations, and the best way to influence them is form the inside (By the way, could you make a donation)?  

You say you don’t want to become a volunteer.   You work forty hours a week, and don’t have the cash on hand to risk quitting and become a party activist.   Besides, you like how you spend your time out of work.  By the way, why can’t I expect you to do your job and represent me, since I have a life and all?  The representative just smiles, says something vague, and hands you a business card. 

Frustrating isn’t it?

American is a constitutional democratic republic.  We elect politicians to represent us.  We vote for individuals who share our values to run the government so we can live a fulfilling life with our friends and family, as opposed to living every minute with a grand political cause in mind as if we’re robots.  Ideally, politicians keep our communities running smoothly and undermine unconstitutional efforts to reshape America so we don’t have to.  When the representative who promised to share my values betrays them, he should be receptive to my concerns.  Remember Dickhead, you serve the people, not vice-versa. 

Telling Phrase: “There is no Republican Party, per se.” 

How to deal with actual Republican officials:  Vote them out of office. 

Next Friday:  The top five most annoying liberal subgroups. 

Tags: annoying conservatives, elitists, huckabites, libertarians, populists, racists, RINOs
Posted in Fun stuff | No Comments »

Doesn’t it seem odd that people vote on everything?  Whenever polite suburbanites come to an impasse, say they’re having trouble deciding where to drink this weekend, they take a vote.  We’ve taken the concept of direct democracy, which we don’t even use in our electoral process, and applied it to our private lives.  Americans vote on where our company outings are being held, which self-absorbed citizen celebrity should leave the reality show set, and where everyone in the sorority should travel for spring break.  

This bugs me because most decisions are just too personal or important to be left in the hands of strictly popular rule.  Direct democracy is only fair in a generic sense, and is often unjust.  I won’t be the first to point out that the repression of 40% of the population by 60% of the population is tyrannical, but not undemocratic.  It would be democratic but repressive if Americans somehow voted to regulate political speech through the fairness doctrine.  It would be fair in a sense, but also fairly senseless to hold a vote on which strategy our generals should use in the Middle East.  It would just be stupid for families with several children to vote on decisions parents should be making unilaterally, such as division of chores and matters of discipline. 

Direct democracy isn’t essential to liberty.  In fact, it potentially undermines our God-given rights as they’re outlined in the Constitution.  Especially in densely populated areas, where intellectual trends can sweep up large numbers of people at once, Americans don’t always understand or even respect the rationale behind freedom of speech, property rights, or checks and balances.  The choice to vote on every decision that may remotely affect your life isn’t nearly as liberating as the ability to elect a representative who can be trusted with your best interests.  Taking some power out of the hands of the fickle “people” is essential to that. 

The Electoral College is a perfect reflection of this.  On one hand, it respects the right of law-abiding citizens to have a say in which presidential candidate their state’s electoral votes go for.  But the United State’s winner take all electoral system undermines direct democracy by keeping a narrow handful of densely populated cities from imposing their unmitigated rule on the rest of the country.  Without the electoral system, prospective presidential candidates would have no incentive to campaign anywhere outside of America’s biggest cities, which in turn would effectively disenfranchise everyone who lives in rural areas. 

Obviously it’s important for American citizens to be able to vote for their political representatives.  Without the ability to vote bad politicians out of office, we would have no agency outside of violence or coercion.  But most decisions don’t affect the general public in such a way that everyone should be invited to chime in about it.  While a lot of valuable insight can be gleaned from digesting a variety of opinions, the best decisions usually aren’t made by committee, but by wise individuals relying on the insights of those around them (as well as from history).  If I’m ever in intensive care, I would rather place my well-being in one doctor’s hands, as opposed to the vote of all the doctors, nurses, janitors, secretaries, and whoever else wants to have a say. 

Remember the argument that Iraq wasn’t “ready for democracy?” (You never hear about that one anymore).  It’s underlying admission is that everyone’s collective opinion isn’t always the most intelligent one.  Case in point: Hugo Chavez has twice been elected President of Venezuela. 

The truth is some situations just aren’t made for democracy, no matter how civilized a population is.  Imagine that you and several friends were having trouble deciding where to eat dinner.  One solution you could try is voting on it.  The results: Your friend Jerry wants to eat at Burger Palace, but that’s not cosmopolitan enough for Markos, who votes for P.F. Chang’s. 
Amanda wants to eat at Buca Da Bepo, but Michelle’s allergic to garlic, and wants to eat at Mexican Hut anyway.  “Don’t they use garlic in their salsa?” you ask, prompting Michelle to say “shut up.”  You and Eva suggest Chili’s, which makes you happy since 33 percent is a plurality in this case.   But Amanda really doesn’t want to eat there, so you and your friends start over.

“We can go to Old People Buffet, they have food that everyone likes” Eva says.  “Yeah, but it sucks worse than Halliburton,” Markos retorts.  “Why don’t we just order pizza?”  Jerry says, inviting a chorus of opinions such as, “As long as there isn’t any pepperoni.”  “I only eat pepperoni.”  “You have the pallet of a five-year old.”  “I don’t like Papa John’s, their sauce is too sweet.”  “What are you talking about?  They’re the best in town!  What do you like, Pizza Slut?”  “All of sudden we’re eating pizza?  I want to get out of here.”  All of this is prolonged by bouts of uncomfortable silence where no one can think of anything to say.  After deliberating for fifteen agonizing minutes, everyone ends up compromising on a place no one is really happy about. 

This is what direct democracy is like.  Any thoughtful insight would be drowned out by the mass’s petty objections and irrelevant musings.   Out of fairness, everyone will be forced to jump through hoops to overcompensate for a small percentage’s special needs (garlic allergies), even though they’re all adults and can take care of themselves.  If they’re lucky, the lowest common dominator will prevail, and everyone involved will be minimally satisfied.  

Now imagine taking a more direct, less democratic approach to where to eat dinner.  Playing the role of the alpha dog, you suggest that everyone should go to Happy Tokyo Surprise.  Someone says “no.”  “O.K., how about Mickey’s?” You quickly suggest.   Everyone more or less agrees and you’re out the door in minutes.  Whether two or ten things are suggested, this method works as long as the decisions whether or not to go are made quickly, without earful deliberation. 

But wait a minute!  In the latter example, not everyone was given five minutes to state their case, along with a two-minute counter-rebuttal.  You don’t even ask Michelle about her allergies! 

It’s true that not everyone’s voice is heard in the latter system, but it’s not as if they can’t assert themselves.  Anyway, it’s okay.

It’s just f**king dinner. 

Tags: dinner, direct democracy
Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »

So this post is here for two reasons:  One, I found a creepy video on Dr. Melissa Clouthier’s page she had some interesting things to say about.  Two, I want to see if I understand pingbacks correctly.  So if you’re reading this, Dr. C, please let me know. 

Generation WE: The Movement Begins… from Generation We on Vimeo.

America’s generational cycle in less than 335 words

According to William Strauss and Neil Howe, American generations follow a four-cycle progression: idealist, reactive, civic, and adaptive.  Idealist generations tend to be full of creative but self-absorbed political and moral absolutists.  Obviously the baby boomers are idealist.  So is FDR’s generation.

A reactive generation which is much more individualistic and cynical follows.  You wouldn’t know it from the video, but Generation X actually comes after the boomers.  Reactives grow up rejecting their elder’s glaze-eyed idealism, and tend to be more pragmatic than idealists.  They’re also less concerned about their social status.  George Washington was part of a reactive generation. 

Reactives are followed by a civic generation.  Today’s civic generation, called the millennials, actually started popping out in 1982.  They’re called the millennials because the first ones graduated high school in 2000.  Members of civic generations tend to be upbeat and eschew labels.  These guys are our institution builders.  Ronald Reagan was part of a civic generation.    

Last and least are adaptive generations, which flood America with sheltered youths who grow up to be sensitive elders.  This seems to be the type of generation that’s being alluded to in the video—the real millennials started becoming old enough to vote years ago.  As of right now, the last complete adaptive generation, the aptly named “silent” generation, hasn’t produced any presidents.  John McCain may have been their last chance.  Adaptives are followed by idealists who rebel against their parent’s complacency, and so on. 

The problem with the real millennial generation is that like all civic generations, they have a strong collectivist reflex.  This makes them susceptible to charismatic leaders (see: FDR, Obama).  They’re not concerned with ideology, which is refreshing but also troubling.  For instance, they don’t understand why communism was so bad, and aren’t equipped to recognize if their “post-partisan” behavior actually mirrors the behavior of say, Italy in the 1930’s.  Energetic and arrogant, they make great soldiers (The “greatest generation” was a civic one) but they’re also perfectly poised to repeat history’s mistakes. 

Tags: civic generation, generation we, generational cycle, howe, strauss
Posted in Responses to other people's material | No Comments »

Congratulations, Barack Obama has been elected President.  I mean that whole-heartedly.  If our representative democracy placed Mr. Obama in power, I respect that decision.  “President Obama” isn’t a pleasant thing to say, but I’ll have at least four years to get used to it. 

Now I hear it’s time for America to heal and become united.  There’s no more room for partisanship; the world’s become much too dangerous for politics as usual to be anything but destructive, right?  Now we should all open the door and collectively begin a new era of American politics, equipped with fresh ideas.  As Obama’s inauguration speech implies, this country should let go of the ”stale” right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, and unite in laying the foundation for a prosperous American future.

Do you agree with that?  Of course you do.  Now that your guy is in charge, the polarity strategy is a threat to your power, not a path to it.  But where were your calls for unity under George W. Bush?  Sure, there was a week right after 9-11 where his opponents bit their tongues and put partisan bickering aside, but now you’re even complaining that gave him a free pass to push his “war agenda” through. 

It would be easier to believe your affection for unity is sincere if you would have acted a bit differently at the turn of the millennium.  With all due respect I take offense to your cynical appeals to our better nature.  You see, the biggest reason America was a polarized nation after George W. Bush was elected is because Democrats threw an eight-year temper tantrum during his term.  George Bush didn’t divide America, you did.  Please don’t shut me out; let me explain. 

George Bush isn’t the polarizing figure you think he is.  He’s an open, self-depreciating, and dare I say likeable fellow.  Even reliably left-wing sources such as Ted Kennedy and PBS concede that he’s personable.   Sure, he wears his religion on his sleeve, but Christians aren’t inherently mean-spirited.  Remember that Bush didn’t win two elections by promising to be strident.  He ran on a platform of big government, “compassionate conservatism,” and he pretty much ran the country that way, spending like an Obama voter who just got paid by ACORN to register in 13 different counties.  He dramatically increased not only defense spending, but threw barrels of money at education and even an expensive prescription drug plan.  

You hated him despite all this, but he didn’t hate you back.   Chances are you barely registered on his radar.  Yet somehow the bizarre way he says “nuclear” was supposed to justify undisguised disgust.  One of Bush’s best moments came in 2004 when at an annual Radio and Television Correspondents dinner, when he joked during his slideshow presentation, “…those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”  This is remarkable because the man took one of his most embarrassing moments and not only drew attention to it, but made light of it (I aspire to be that good natured).  Obviously the opposing Democratic Party didn’t see it that way.  Being his political opponents, they ignored Bush’s good humor and instead said that he wasn’t taking the issue seriously enough, which is to say bland enough to be printed in a high school textbook. 

In stark contrast to an affable President who has enough charity and self-esteem to earnestly poke fun at his own self, you drove around for years with Kerry/Edwards ’04 stickers on your car, clearly communicating the message that you reject George Bush and everyone who supported him.  Eight years after the fact, you still complain about the outcome of the 2000 election.  You even set up a passive-aggressive website apologizing to the rest of the world for Bush’s re-election.  You compiled lists of “Bushisms” knowing full well that every public speaker, even President Obama, can be made to look like a doofus if you isolate their linguistic mishaps.  Out of your own accord, you did everything you could to disassociate yourself from Republicans, conservatives, and what is colloquially known as “red state America.” 

George Bush didn’t call you stupid every day for eight years, but you did it to him.  George Bush never protested in front of your home, harassed your children, and mocked you as someone’s puppet as you did to members of his administration.  The neocons didn’t experiment with what Michelle Malkin calls “Assassination chic,” an undoubtedly well-adjusted industry which deals in perverse fantasies of George Bush’s murder.  You can disagree with every single executive decision he made, but what kind of unresolved emotional trauma produces the kind of person who revels in the death of someone they merely disagree with?  

In the dawn of the new Obama administration, you have placed the responsibility for unifying the country exclusively on the shoulders of your opponents, just as you’ve done in the past.  You blamed George Bush for not conforming to your ideas about the Iraq war, without budging from your anti-war stance.  Likewise, you’re calling for the American right to fall in line behind a leader who promises to enact several policies which are likely to be completely antithetical to conservative values.  If America in fact unites under Barack Obama, it won’t be because he’s a “transformational figure,” but because you won’t be waging a cultural filibuster against every program he proposes.  Sure you want America to unify, but you conveniently leave out that you will only allow that to happen under the condition that your mandate is being driven.  Your calls for unity are a sham, designed to shame your opponents into silence. If by some miracle John McCain had become President, you would be perpetually agitating Republicans in abject rejection of an America united under a moderate conservative.  

To summarize:  You did everything you legally could to undermine the prospect of an America united behind George W. Bush.  Now that your guy’s in power, all of a sudden we’re living in a post-partisan era?  Sorry, dear.  The chickens will be coming home to roost this year.  But I will pay homage to your behavior under George W. Bush’s presidency (during a time of war, no less). 

Out of nothing but protest, I’m going to drive for four years with a McCain/Palin sticker on my car’s rear bumper.  I’m going to laugh unnaturally at Obama’s speech flubs, even though just like Bush’s, they’ll rarely be funny.  I’m going to proudly sport t-shirts that say “F*ck Obama.”  I’m going to frivolously accuse him and his administration of crimes against humanity.  If Barack Obama passes on bad information in good faith, like Bush did with WMDs, I’m going to insist that he was lying instead of misinformed, clinging to badly worded documents which “prove” my point. 

Actually, I’m probably only going to do the bumper sticker.  I’ve learned from watching you that stewing in hatred for eight years can make an opposing administration feel much more hellish than it truly is.  While you’re pleading for unity (lest someone undermine your political power) I’ll be calling for perspective.  Like most other conservatives, I’ll support President Obama when it makes sense because my country’s well-being is partly dependent on his performance.  But I will also be reminding Americans that he’s not a post-partisan pragmatist, but a charismatic leftist.  Barack Obama’s ideas aren’t new; they can be traced back to a long-standing philosophical heritage known as “liberalism.”  Pretending otherwise is patently anti-intellectual.  Whether you like it or not, the left/right dichotomy will be more relevant under Obama’s presidency, because it’s perfectly suited for shedding light on the nature of his ideals. 

I harbor no illusions about the effect of this very personal letter.  After reading this, you will undoubtedly defend your blinding hatred of America’s 43rd President, while refusing to acknowledge the glaring contradiction manifest in your behavior under Republican rule and the cloying requests for unity which you employ now that a man who reflects your sensibilities is arguably the most powerful person in the world.  I reject your unity, because it doesn’t mean dialogue and bipartisan compromise; it means get out of your way so you can “remake” America without having to deal with your critics. With all due respect, I refuse to sacrifice my conscience on the altar of your vision, even if it makes me a “cynic.”

Tags: Bush, Obama, post-partisan, Unity
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

I found this in a Wal-mart parking lot. 

Tags: Nobama, Prius
Posted in Fun stuff | No Comments »

…may surprise you.

One of the reasons conservative commentators focused on Barack Obama’s associates during the 2008 election season is that they’re so obviously radical.  The Big Blue O’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preaches flame-throwing liberation theology.  William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose violent past is such a casual part of his identity even conscientious citizens don’t raise an eyebrow to it, has hosted a fundraiser for Obama and donated to his campaign.  Like her husband, Michelle Obama is not particularly unpleasant, yet she’s vulnerable to the siren song of victim politics.  More than once she has claimed:  “Every woman I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, is struggling every day to keep her head above water.”  If I were foolish enough to take Mrs. Obama’s words to heart, I would be forced to conclude that Oprah Winfrey is a misstep away from some sort of breakdown.  

Yet President Obama isn’t guilty by association.  For all of his boring, conventional liberalism, Barack Obama won’t be the most terrible leader our country has endured (America’s future presidents would likely have to sabotage the economy to surpass the downward spiral of Jimmy Carter’s reign).  As much as an Obama presidency would lurch the country leftward, the most disturbing prospect of his rule is not his executive power, but the worst behavior of those who voted for him.  I’m afraid that a victory by Obama will legitimize the hatred, arrogance, and aggression of not Obama or his cabinet, but Obama’s most vocal supporters.  Now that a relatively young idealist has become the President of the United States, it could be seen by his constituents as a four-year mandate to act out. 

Once liberals see one of their own in the oval office again, what will become of American culture?  This isn’t an abstract question.  In between the economy, the Middle East, and the millennial generation’s corny communitarianism, the nation won’t be able to return to the tranquil 1990′s, so what kind of culture will Obama’s rule inspire?  Will those who think the government created AIDS to get rid of black people start to be taken seriously?  Will our educators be trained by more people like the aforementioned professor Ayers, who won’t concede that bombing the U.S. capital is terrorism?  Will it empower the immature activism of people who vandalize property in democracy’s name?  Barack Obama’s presidency will be a victory for the deepening politicization of American culture, which will please the “vote or die” crowd.  But as anyone can observe every time an election draws near, this isn’t a good thing, as it invariably leads to political strife and the further institutionalization of resentment. 

This was clearly demonstrated through the misbehavior of many Obama supporters during the 2008 Presidential election, particularly in their treatment of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after John McCain announced her as his running mate.  Because she’s a conservative woman, one left-wing entertainer called her a traitor, and commented how Palin would be gang-raped in her neighborhood.  Another liberal actor condescendingly compared her achievement to a shallow family film.  Many uninformed citizens believe that Palin wanted to ban books from public libraries, even though many of the books on the supposed blacklist hadn’t even been published when she purportedly tried to censor them.  Even the twenty-year old son of a Democratic representative has been indicted for breaking into her e-mail account and attempting to distribute the contents for the entire world to see.  Most embarrassingly for her opponents, aging feminists complained that Palin isn’t authentically female because she isn’t liberal.  This is only the tip of an iceberg full of outlandish editorials, bad comedy skits, and weeks of internet message boards filling to the brim with anti-Palin talking points, all fed by the unrelenting production of shallow objections to a stunning range of topics spanning from tanning beds to her personal faith. 

Governor Palin was blackballed for being a normal, imperfect American woman living a normal, imperfect American life with a normal, imperfect American family.  Everything from her daughter’s pregnancy to her sister’s (all too common) ugly divorce became a distraction from genuine issues.  Republicans and Democrats alike rightly criticized Palin’s poor performances in her post-nomination interviews, but the malice directed at her by Obama voters would have been more appropriately reserved for pedophiles and slave owners.  This behavior wasn’t limited to anonymous internet trolls, but professors, generally likeable actors, and even the occasional figurehead of an entire movement (Gloria Steinem).  Given the Obama campaign’s ambivalence for free speech, the prospect of such intolerant citizens having a representative in the White House is understandably creepy.  Bald partisanship, not judicious compromise, will be the hallmark of Obama’s America. 

Case in point: When Barack Obama chose the moderately conservative Christian Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a substantial part of his base lost their emotional bowels.  Gay activists felt “betrayed” by his selection, which only makes sense if fidelity means refusing to associate with social conservatives.  The gay community’s political fringe feels disrespected by Obama’s choice, which suggests they believe the world revolves around them—what else can one to make of their insistence that Obama stop talking to Rick Warren so they can feel more secure about his affection for them?  Predictably, some LGBT activists have angrily pleaded for Warren to step down.  Surely the Stonewall Reenactment Club will stage at least one small protest at today’s massive inauguration. 

It’s gotten to the point where entertainers have been forced to become more sane and even-tempered than the masses who worship them.  But Obama never promised to blacklist everyone to the right of him.  In fact, he campaigned as a pragmatic centrist and talked endlessly about reaching across the aisle.  Surely his supporters were aware of this.  Obama has pleasantly surprised me by living up to his word (Don’t jump to conclusions, it’s only his first day), but somehow this has disgusted much of his base.  Did they think he was lying?  Are they mad now that it appears he wasn’t cynically mouthing platitudes to the rubes just to get elected?

Yet President Obama is not completely innocent in this matter.  In his two-year tour for the Presidency, Obama implicitly encouraged the same self-righteous crusading he’s now bedeviled by.  In September, he told his followers “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.  I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.  I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”  No report on whether or not he expects them to dress in white shirts, black slacks, and black ties while traveling door to door, carrying copies of A People’s History of the United States.

If President Obama keeps living up to his word, he will only create more extremists on his side.  Consider the President’s roundabout plan for mandating 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students (100 for college students).  There’s nothing wrong with community service, but anyone familiar with the way activism works knows that non-profit organizations are vulnerable to politicization.  Non-profit groups such as Campaign for America’s Future are so plainly anti-conservative that the prospect of a student being compelled to serve time under one of their “community leaders” is essentially an engine for turning students into left-wing activists.  Obama’s plan risks mandating young Americans to participate in partisan politics before they’re mature enough to resist emotional appeals and other types of indoctrination. 

Obviously one must take into account the predictable counter-argument that conservatives aren’t all winners, either.  Certainly some small-minded nutballs on the right are fixated with Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, or strangely insistent that he’s not an indigenous American, but they don’t set the tone for the right like the MSNBC crowd does for the left.  Part of this is because Republicans don’t generally call on their supporters to be more obnoxious.   

In the end, the most disturbing part of Obama’s rise is that it indirectly affirms a worldview shared by the left’s most extreme voices.  It gives credence to the idea that America is fundamentally unjust and needs to be remade, not merely reformed.  It confirms the thoughtless assumptions of young neophytes, who seem to imagine that all conservatives are irredeemable liars, hypocrites, and dopes.  It gives more seasoned liberal lawyers and judges a green light from the highest office in the land to contort the Constitution around the myth of modern American oppression.  It rewards the hateful mob who went out of their way to call Sarah Palin “stupid” in their collective attempt to sway the election.  Perhaps worst of all, Obama’s rise to power sends the message to aspiring community organizers that harassing complete strangers with unsolicited political commentary is something commendable, rather than juvenile.  Make no mistake; Obama’s America will never be as bad as Obama’s Americans.  Maybe he’ll learn that the more he contends with them. 

Parce parce precor.  

-Afghan Whig

Tags: ayers, inauguration, Obama, obama supporters, palin, wright
Posted in Current Events | 2 Comments »

About

This is my website, theswordandtheolivebranch.com.  It will be updated once every weekday with my opinions dedicated to current events, reviews of movies that have been out of theatre for years, and occasionally sports.  But more than anything, it’s dedicated to the renewal of conservative philosophy.  Yes, it’s another @##% conservative blog.  But I swear it’s different. 

All of my liberal friends (for better or worse, most of them are liberal) tell me I’m not like most conservatives they meet.  It’s not because I’m a fair-weather Republican who throws the religious right under the bus every time I’m at a party—I have more dignity than that.  It’s because I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it, even as I’m learning more every day.  I can explain why I’m pro-life or against illegal immigration to liberals without losing my temper or appealing to a moral order they simply don’t agree with, respect, or even understand. 

See, the argument that “conservative” equals “common sense” doesn’t cut it.  For conservatism to survive the coming millennial generation, right-wingers must understand exactly where their ideals came from and be able to explain to all open-minded Americans what conservatism actually is.  For starters, it’s not infantile clinging to vestiges of a golden past.  Anyone who knows anything about history knows 99% of it isn’t worth re-living, and .5 of the remaining 1% would still be a nightmare for spoiled westerners.  Caste systems and communes aren’t exactly ideal environments for human development.  But I’m getting ahead of myself. 

Because even Republicans aren’t exactly conservative right now, I’m going to blog with a constant eye on reinforcing conservative values.  This doesn’t mean I’m going to hector liberals about being “godless” or “unpatriotic.”  What it means is that I’m going to be myself and focus on explaining why I believe the American right is rare and valuable, especially in contrast to the countless utilitarian, statist, and populist movements that pollute history.  The last thing I want is to appeal to fear or prejudice.  In fact, one of my greatest motivations is to frustrate such appeals.  A good rule of thumb is to watch what people are being the most emotional and unyielding about, and err the other way.  Even the most righteous cause can be warped by extremism.    

I’ve titled my page The Sword and the Olive Branch because these are the most important tools any conservative needs to get along in America.  It’s hard to predict if someone you’ve just met is going to deal with you in good faith.  Some of the most hardcore liberals I know are surprisingly open to honest debate, while some of the most polite liberals I’ve met are insufferably closed-minded.    Since it’s tough to tell who’s who, the best way to approach everyone at first is to hold out an olive branch-risk their condemnation by being frank, but not belligerent.  Consequently, my posts will employ a lot of hemming and hawing and ostensibly redundant declarations such as “not all liberals are unpatriotic.”  Trust me, they’re not redundant to people who’ve spent their entire life being taught that conservatism is simply an apology for exploitation and bigotry. 

Yet due to the plain fact that not everyone will feel obligated to reciprocate that good faith, conservatives must also be ready to wield a sword when needed.  Explaining my lukewarm opposition to gay marriage to someone who’s only interested in portraying my words as “homophobic” would be casting pearls before swine.  Thusly I’m going to hack at some weeds every so often.  It sometimes pays to be provocative like Ann Coulter rather than stately like Brit Hume.  On the same token, this isn’t going to be a right-wing version of Pandagon— I also have more dignity than that.

I guess I should describe myself somewhere in here.  My name is Tony.  I was born on the ass end of generation X, grew up in Michigan (hence the blind devotion to Detroit sports—even the Lions), lived briefly in Florida, colleged in Iowa, and now I live in Southern California, where it often takes half a hour to drive eight blocks (as long as my car hasn’t been stolen).   

On the right-wing spectrum, I’m self-consciously fusionist.  I truly believe that conservatism is fundamentally the reconciliation of traditional morality and libertarianism, held together by an aversion to the far left.  My favorite news magazines are Reason and National Review.  Reading these alternately is like growing up with Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley as divorced parents.  I’m starting to worry my dual consciousness has taken me to ridiculous extremes:  I’m a Baptist who fervently supports Mitt Romney and cites South Park to explain political theory. 

If you’re charitable enough to peruse my blog, you’re going to be assailed with references to great conservative thinkers such as Russell Kirk and Ludwig Von Mises.  If you’re already familiar with how these men differ, this may not be the blog for you, because I’ll be covering old ground and frankly I’m still digesting the Austrian trade cycle theory.  But then again if someone forced a fifth of Jim Beam down my throat while another stood across the room and shot me with tranquilizers, I could still write a 30-page extemporaneous essay on the short history of American conservatism.  I work very hard to understand something before I write about it, so The Sword and the Olive Branch is going to be more thoughtful and interesting than a dilettante’s inchoate rants. 

Most importantly, I’ll be having fun.  I’m going to try and be least a little responsible and remain academically detached, but if you like top five lists about the most annoying things environmentalists do, or would like to witness a conversation I overheard between Mitt “Beaver” Romney and Al Gore-bot, then stick around.   I’m going to have several days of play.  Besides, I know that you haven’t read anything like I’m going to write down here.  At the very least, I’m a novelty. 

Take care,

-Afghan Whig

Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »