51 posts tagged “conservative”

Lopez: What is a conservative?

Noonan: Thank you for asking. I think this is something we should talk about more, and something I would urge NR to address with a greater force or breadth. Bill Buckley and his hardy band — James Burnham, Jeffrey Hart, etc. — brought to their task a certain missionary zeal. They thought they had to explain this thing, conservatism, to an American public that had just come through 25 years of the New Deal and had not heard or seen conservatism announced, put forward, or explained in a coherent way in more than a generation. (Russell Kirk of course was very much a part of this project, in perhaps a broader way.) Let me tell you, everyone wants to talk about politics, and the kind of ad McCain should cut, but what about the philosophies that animate our politics? But briefly, my views. You can debate whether conservatism is a philosophy, a program of settled ideas, a school of thought, a way of seeing the world. I tend to see it, to experience it, as a way of being, a way of understanding the world and responding to it. I cannot help but think that knowing there is a God is the start of all conservatism. (Apologies to agnostic friends who are various kinds and flavors of conservative.) Once you know that you know something big. From there you go on to knowing man. “If men were angels . . . ” They are not, so you don’t want to give them too much governmental power. I’ll throw forward some words and phrases meant to be shorthand for a lot. Prudence. A sense of reality. Understanding limits. Respect for tradition — it didn’t happen by accident. The long view. Respect for the individual and his rights. A knowledge that life is worth living, we’re lucky to be here. I would add or emphasize, for me, a Catholic sense of mystery — we don’t know all, can’t know all, must do our best. I think of ideology as some abstract thing dreamed up by intellectuals and squished down on the heads of human beings — “You will conform your actions to my ideological assumptions and expectations!” I see philosophy as something that rises up from human beings who observe and live with human beings. Conservatism is not an ideology. That’s the last thing it is.

This is taken from an enlightening interview with Noonan.  Going forward from this current political situation, she shares her view that Conservatives need to begin focusing on what makes America...and she is clear that Washington isn't it.  It's worth reading the whole thing. 

I'm rapidly running out of ways to criticize Barack Obama.  Over the past two years, I've been lamenting at various times (and in no particular order): Obama's inexperience, questionable associations, stated policy goals, inept assessments of world events, pandering to abortion extremists, Chicago-style thug politics, indiscriminate acceptance of donations, effete inability to relate to rural voters, hypocritical vice-presidential pick, nebulous and disingenuous center-left talk and finally his irritatingly frequent mental pauses when off the prompter.

At first, I went with inexperience.  Up until the Democrat primaries, I remained convinced that Clinton would get the nomination.  This was primarily because I had faith in the commitment to reason of my Democrat countrymen.  Quite frankly I believe that a Clinton ticket might have taken on Obama as VP and sailed to victory, while still acknowledging the political realities of our current situation (this isn't to say that I would have supported such a ticket, rather I think it would have simply been less awful).  Despite a late comeback from Clinton, Obama walked away with the nod.  Despite the same dirty politicking which gave him his Senate seat, and one very memorable use of the race card (Bill Clinton is a racist now?) the Democrat constituency decided to give Obama the opportunity to lead this country.

I thought then, foolishly, that we'd begin to see the press digging through his record in the Senate.  They'd form their narrative of his rise to prominence and fill in the gaping holes left by his campaign narrative.  Nope.  This is a separate issue, but the press has championed this man's candidacy from the start, downplaying serious concerns and trumpeting the story that Obama's people want told.  In a year that favors Democrats, with a candidate like John McCain agonizing over how honorable he must be instead of trying to win, and the race being within 4-7 points...imagine today's headlines if the so-called journalists in our news media had deigned to investigate Obama with half as much energy as they devoted to Sarah Palin...or Joe the Plumber.  Within days of daring to ask Obama a hard question in which the candidate revealed his socialist leanings, Joe's garbage had been thorougly rifled through.  They can't do that to a candidate for President?  They won't, and they didn't.

Over the next few months I would identify an issue, follow its progression through the mainstream news and through the blogs, and inevitably watch it die a limping, somewhat befuddled death.  So many times, I saw what I thought could not be ignored.  I thought each of these issues would finally begin the process of seriously investigating this man who wants to lead a federal government that I know he intends to grow dramatically.

Each issue was glossed over, roundly ignored, outright denied or rationalized.  I swear I saw Obama change his position and contradict himself, yet his supporters barely noticed. 

The cult of personality which has developed around this man is nothing short of alarming.  Do you remember the fainting?  The Berlin rally?  Try criticizing this man in front of people who have cheered themselves hoarse for a vision they can't even articulate.  They're roaring their approval for a cloud, a man who changes shape to become what people want to see. 

Nothing, no issue has stuck to him for more than a few days.  Not Jeremiah Wright, not his socialism, not the corrupt donation process on his site, not the voter fraud perpetrated on his behalf, not his idiotic foreign policy declarations...nothing.  And he is poised to assume the Presidency in what will be an historic, and historically bad, moment. 

This election may see a permanent leftward shift in our country.  Permanent.  You understand, of course, that the more power you give to government the less you have yourself?  And what it is given it rarely if ever gives back willingly?  This means that if universal healthcare doesn't work, we're stuck with it.  This means that if you work hard and become rich, you'll be taxed and your money given to those who don't work or who simply aren't as successful.  And you'll be stuck with that. 

I believe there has already been a shift in this country.  We used to be a nation of independent spirits, distrustful of the government and anyone telling us what to do with our property.  We've become, over the past 50 years, a nation of people asking "where's mine?" with an outstretched hand.  We've voluntarily sewn ourselves up in red tape.  We've seen our taxes increase to our detriment and decrease to our prosperity, yet we've learned nothing.

Maybe Obama really is the president this country wants.  Maybe he is the President this country deserves. 

Since the topic has been coming up lately, I submit to you this piece.  I found it reinforces my own views.  Since I am not interested in making a substantial post of my own, you must subsist on my regurgitations.  How's that for imagery?

Obama’s New Tax Welfare
Behind the 95.

By Peter Ferrara

Barack Obama says he plans to cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. That sounds terrific, but there are three problems. One, it is meant to draw attention from the real core of the Obama tax plan: proposed increases in every major federal tax. Two, the structure of the cuts will create perverse incentives. And three, many of the people receiving “tax cuts” don’t pay taxes to begin with, meaning they’ll be in effect getting welfare.

The first point requires but a simple list. Obama proposes to raise the top two individual income tax rates by 25 percent or more, through both explicit rate increases and the phaseout of personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for upper-income earners. He’ll increase the capital-gains tax rate by 33 percent, the tax rate on dividends by 33 percent, and the top payroll-tax rate by 16 to 32 percent. He’ll create a new payroll tax for national health insurance, estimated at 7 percent. He’ll reinstate the death/inheritance tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal rate of 45 percent. He’ll increase the corporate tax burden by 25 percent “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” He’ll even increase tariffs through his protectionist trade policies.

Obama argues that only higher-income workers and rich corporations will suffer these tax increases, and they can afford it. But tax and economic policy is not about who “can afford it.” Increasing these marginal tax rates greatly harms the economy — when more of the money earned goes to the government, there’s less incentive for “the rich” to work, save, invest, and create and expand businesses. This affects people trying to start businesses with investment money from wealthy folks. Not to mention people looking for jobs, which usually come from businesspeople with money.

This isn’t just a theory. Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second-lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per-capita GDP in the EU. Ireland, with its 12.5-percent rate, raises 50 percent more corporate-tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35 percent rate. Yet Barack Obama laughs at McCain’s proposal to reduce that corporate rate to 25 percent, the minimum needed to restore international competitiveness for U.S. companies and employers, mocking it as still more tax cuts for rich corporate fat cats.



Obama’s tax plan is exactly the opposite of the supply-side economics that Reagan adopted, which produced the astounding boom of the 1980s. That boom, in fact, lasted 25 years, from 1982 to 2007, as Art Laffer and Steve Moore discuss in their new book, The End of Prosperity. Laffer and Moore explain that more wealth was produced during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years of American history.

Obama’s tax plan is also exactly the opposite of President Kennedy’s, which produced another astounding boom in the 1960s. Pursuing the exact opposite policies from Kennedy and Reagan will produce exactly the opposite results.

(Note also that Obama’s tax increases will not produce nearly enough revenue to finance all his lavish spending proposals, as shown by a brilliant new paper from Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute. And by the way, Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 promising a tax cut for the middle class — after he was elected he dropped that idea, adopting tax increases for people making as little as $20,000 per year.)

Finally, Obama’s “tax cut,” if he follows through with it, will often be a simple giveaway. As it stands right now, roughly one-third of income earners pay no federal income taxes. Many actually receive payments from the income-tax system — these payments total 3.8 percent of all federal taxes paid. Simple arithmetic holds that if one-third of earners don’t pay income tax, it’s impossible to cut taxes for 95 percent of earners.

Obama’s “tax cut” is, in reality, a $500-per-worker refundable income-tax credit for workers making up to $75,000 per year, and for families making up to $150,000. The term “refundable” means that if the worker does not have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit anyway. It is like George McGovern’s 1972 promise of a $1,000 check for everyone, which the American people rejected as a crass vote-buying scheme.

Besides the $500-per-worker credit, Obama proposes a slew of income-tax credits targeted toward low- and moderate-income people, also refundable. Obama proposes such tax credits for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare, etc.

Though the people receiving these credits will spend the money, the programs will probably hurt the economy on net, because the credits will be phased out at higher income levels. This, in effect, constitutes yet another marginal tax on high-income earners, and thus another blow to their incentives to be productive.

These programs alone would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. I call it The New Tax Welfare.

— Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan’s White Office of Policy Development, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under the first President Bush.

The Rage That’s Not On Your Front Page
The liberal media frets over conservative anger, but are blind to a torrent of liberal hate.

By Michelle Malkin

When a few unruly McCain-Palin supporters show their anger at campaign rallies, it’s national news. It’s an epidemic of “Weimar-like rage” and “violent escalation of rhetoric,” according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich. It’s the “re-emergence of the far right as a power in American politics,” according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. It’s a mass movement of GOP crowds “gripped by insane rage,” according to newly minted Nobel Prize–winner Paul Krugman.

Appropriate?

 man’s fist knocking a tooth out of the Alaska governor’s mouth and the glasses off her face.

For your perusal and discussion:

Jive Turkey Rides Again
By the Editors

If we learned anything from the mess in Florida in 2000, it’s this: When elections don’t end on Election Day, things get ugly quickly. That is why today, and not the day after Election Day, is the day for Americans of all political stripes to aggressively press for more robust safeguards against vote fraud and for immediate action on the registration-fraud investigations targeting ACORN, the community-organizing enterprise that has been the sometime employer and full-time ally of Barack Obama.

ACORN’s voter-registration affiliate, Project Vote, was founded by leftist activist Sandy Newman. When Newman was looking to hire somebody to run Project Vote in Illinois, he turned to a local lawyer who had conducted training for ACORN: Barack Obama. Small world. (“He did one hell of a job,” Newman says. Undoubtedly.) ACORN’s political-action committee is supporting Obama, to nobody’s great surprise, and ACORN has hired Michelle Obama’s old Chicago law firm to help them out in a million-dollar embezzlement case. (National Review’s Stanley Kurtz documents the Obama-ACORN nexus here.) More significant, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against Illinois, seeking to force the implementation of “motor voter” registrations, an initiative that has provided rich opportunity for voter-registration fraud. Senator Obama today disavows his connection to the leftist group in much the same way he describes his longtime associate and benefactor, the impenitent terrorist Bill Ayers, as “some guy who lived in my neighborhood.” Which is to say, he does so dishonestly.

ACORN’s Nevada offices were raided by federal law enforcement on Tuesday as part of a vote-fraud investigation. At least ten states have reported suspicions about ACORN’s new voters, who number at least three million since 2004. Among those the group was seeking to register to vote in Nevada were the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. “Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada,” deadpanned Ross Miller, Nevada’s secretary of state. It is against the law to employ felons in voter-registration projects; ACORN seems to have employed at lest 59 of them, inmates on work release.

Unsurprisingly, the team of vote-canvassers assembled by ACORN for the benefit of Senator Obama — a gang one disgruntled felon/inmate/activist described as “lazy crackheads” — has produced some colorful results: 21 separate voter-registration applications were filed for a single voter in Miami; activists have attempted to register untold numbers of dead, underage, imprisoned, imaginary, or otherwise ineligible voters in swing states; in Indiana, signatures were forged on registration cards for names apparently pulled out of the phone book at random, and Indianapolis/Marion County’s registration now stands at 105 percent of the voting-age population; in Nevada, registrations for Cowboys’ star Terrell Owens and other would-be voters were filed from non-existent addresses, and there were no records of the existence of many of the people proffered as voters. In Albuquerque, at least 1,400 registration cards are in question. Missouri (53,500 new ACORN voters) and Ohio are finding forged signatures and registrations from non-existent addresses. These are not isolated cases; they run into several thousands already, and the investigations have only begun.

In July of 2007, five ACORN activists pleaded guilty to fraud in Washington state for submitting nearly 2,000 phony voter applications. ACORN’s new team has facilitated at least 40,000 new voter registrations in the state of Washington for this election. The Wall Street Journal reports that ACORN workers in Ohio were “given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey.” The Republican party in Ohio is asking the state this year to cross-reference driver’s-license numbers on registrations against the state’s motor-vehicles database, so that any mismatches can be examined. They are making their case in federal court, but Ohio’s Democratic secretary of state is resisting. Democratic officeholders across the country deny there is a problem.

There are millions of new ACORN-registered voters on the rolls for this election. It would be corrosive to our institutions if fraud were to force a close 2008 presidential race to be hashed out in court after the fact, or cast doubt on the result. Recall the gubernatorial election of Christine Gregoire of Washington state, where those ACORN activists were convicted of fraud. In Gregoire’s election, Democratic districts tallied up more mail-in ballots than there were mail-in voters, while Republican districts were found to have fewer votes than voters. Mail-in ballots are inherently problematic because there is no way of knowing who actually fills them out; their use should probably be restricted to overseas military and diplomatic personnel. Asking voters to go to the polls and show a valid photo ID would put an end to many of these questions, and doing so is not too much to ask to maintain the integrity of our democracy.

Alright, so I think the consensus is that last night was 90 minutes we'll never get back again.

McCain let Obama get away with blaming Republicans for the current financial crisis, never making the case that Democrats are the ones who have presided over this process of opening up mortgages to people who have a history of not paying their bills. 

Obama predictably tread (trod?) water on foreign policy, but McCain didn't do much to exploit his opponent's weakness.

For a townhall format, Tom Brokaw certainly didn't open up the questions to the audience very much.  I would have liked to see Brokaw just call out the subject and stand back...too bad he seemed to think people wanted to obey time limits and politely change the subject before getting into anything worthwhile.

I wanted blood last night, and all I got was the same bullcrap.  I am now starting to think that McCain doesn't even want to win this thing.  There is so much ammunition he could use against Obama, even if he never mentioned Ayers again.  Rezko, Wright, the Chicago machine...just for associations. 

How about bringing up the fact that Obama still can't admit the surge worked?  You'll notice that Obama didn't respond to that, which by debate rules is a concession of the point...which makes McCain's earlier silence on Freddie and Fannie just as damning. 

I am having real trouble with my candidate, because he just seems unwilling to go on a sustained attack.  It's maddening. 

Today I wanted to talk about the comparative treatment of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in the media.

I wanted to make the case that Gwen Ifill has a clear ethical conflict because she stands to profit from the victory of Barack Obama.

I was going to go over all the things I thought Sarah Palin should say tonight to counter the underwhelming performances in her mainstream TV interviews. 

I wanted to do a lot of things today, but I'm not really in the mood. 

Suffice it to say that I am rooting for Sarah Palin in tonight's debate.  I saw her Alaskan debates two years ago, and I remember being struck by how she commanded the scene.  She could do the same thing tonight, so long as she sticks to her guns.  She has a philosophy and ideological framework that informs her views. 

With this, she doesn't need to know all the facts and statistics that gotcha journalism seems to think is relevant.  She doesn't need to know the GDP of Australia right off the top of her head.  Google can tell her that in three seconds.  She needs to know only that our actions as a nation can be made within the aforementioned framework of conservatism...or that of liberalism. 

The American people need to decide which one is for them.  I believe that conservatism is the more common sense approach, the more effective way of managing foreign affairs and domestic fortunes.  I believe that liberalism breeds discontent and dependency on a government which cannot possibly fulfill the promises it makes.  Only the individual can chart his own life, secure his own liberty, and pursue his own happiness.  We are made poorer by government largesse, poorer in spirit and poorer in character.  And, of course, poorer in pocket.

Sarah Palin still has my support, and if she stays true to what makes her effective then we'll see quite a debate.  If she tries instead to live up to the expectations of those who want her to fail (the media, in particular) then she will play right into their hands.

We'll know tonight what kind of future she has, or this race will continue to limp along inconclusively as it has for much of the past two years.  After two years we are finally nearing the end, but what of it?  Tonight I would not be surprised to see yet another unimportant milepost on this long, slow deathmarch of a campaign. 

Victor Davis Hanson:

Journalists continue to ask, “What was John McCain thinking in selecting the gaffe-prone Gov. Sarah Palin?”
In what has now become a disturbing pattern, the Alaska governor seems either unable or unwilling to avoid embarrassing statements that are often as untrue as they are outrageous. Recently, for example, in an exclusive interview with news anchor Katie Couric, Palin gushed, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’ ” Apparently the former Alaskan beauty queen failed to realize that in 1929 there was neither widespread television nor was Franklin Roosevelt even President.

Get the point?

And it is a problem in this country.

The Left Finally Accepts Religion in Government... So Long As You Worship Obama

Thinking about the Smith College op-ed where a student declares Obama to be her "Personal Jesus," I'm reminded of something I wrote on the off-duty blog:

This [children singing about Obama] video illustrates a phenomenon that I’ve periodically underestimated in assessing politics this cycle.

A large number of Americans, like the poster on Mulder’s wall, Want To Believe.

They want to believe in a political leader who they can describe in Messianic terms. They want to touch hands that have touched him. They want the face of their leader staring down on them on posters in public places.

They want to indoctrinate their children about his greatness before they can think for themselves, as we saw in the “children singing” video.

They want to sing songs about him, and credit him for “healing people’s souls.” They want to get together in groups of tens of thousands and chant their leader’s name. They want to make that silly “O” salute.

Cam, you and I have talked offline about the Founding Fathers and their vision of what a citizen of the new nation would be: fiercely independent, largely self-reliant, skeptical of government power, fearful of the passions of the public at large, and modest in his national ambitions. A large swath of the public is the exact opposite of this.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” It’s tough to keep it if enough of the citizenry wants to see the chief executive as a Xersian God-King.

We can argue if Obama's tax plan is good or bad, or whether unconditional face-to-face summits with Iran's leaders is a good idea, or whether McCain or Obama have the managerial skills to be an effective president. But it's impossible to refute someone who believes that Obama is healing people's souls. You can't dissuade someone whose criteria for a president is whether or not he can make that "mythical voice boom out over the mountaintops." It's fascinating that the press that screamed bloody murder over John Ashcroft holding prayer meetings with some staffers before work is now shrugging its shoulders at the fact that a portion of the national conversation includes, "In the Name of Obama, Amen."

This issue is perhaps the most troubling aspect of a troubling presidential race.  At some point I think all conservatives have hit "the wall" in debate with liberals about Obama and his policies.  Rational point after rational point can be made against the man, and acknowledged by our opponents as a shortcoming...but it never actually makes a difference to anyone. 

For too many people, support for Obama is based on irrational hopes and vague promises of change.  What bothers me the most about the other side is how uncritical they are of this untried man who wants to be our nation's top bureaucrat.  But the office of POTUS has somehow been conflated with the idea of a visionary and epochal leader.  That's worse for the country than any recession.

Ask any conservative today about John McCain and I doubt you'd find the same kind of unblinking acceptance of the candidate.  I feel like we have our eyes wide open about McCain's shortcomings, and have decided that despite those he remains the better candidate in this race.  Rest assured that if McCain breaks with conservatism too often he will be roundly and forcefully criticized.  I believe in my heart that if Obama breaks with liberalism then it will be liberals who modify their stance on the issues. 

Props to Geraghty for referencing Xerxes and all the attendant imagery that name evokes.