AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Look it up yourself on the internet.

March 17, 2009
The Republican Civil War
By Thomas Sowell

As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.

At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.

New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele's cheap shot at Rush's program as "ugly" set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.

Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.

Why Michael Steele found it necessary to say such a thing-- except as a sop to the liberal intelligentsia-- is one of the many mysteries of the Republican Party. Steele has since apologized to Rush but you cannot unring the bell.

More important, the mindset it betrays is at the heart of many of the problems of the Republican Party, going back for years, long before Michael Steele appeared on the scene.

There has long been an element of the Republican Party that has felt a need to distance themselves from people who stand up for conservative principles, whether those with principles have been Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh or whomever.

The latest example is John McCain's daughter, who has said how embarrassed she is by having to explain Ann Coulter to her friends. If it wasn't for articulate conservatives like Ann Coulter, both the Republican Party and the country would be in even worse shape than they are now, for there are extremely few articulate Republican politicians who can make the case for any principle. Certainly Ms. McCain's father is not one of them.

The only time John McCain led Barack Obama in the polls last year was after Governor Sarah Palin joined the ticket. The economic collapse doomed their candidacies but McCain would have had no chance at all with another inconsistent and inarticulate Republican like himself on the ticket.

Yet many in the Republican Party seem to have felt as embarrassed by Governor Palin as they have been by others who articulated principles, instead of trying to be in step with the fashions of the time-- fashions set by liberals.

Maybe those Republicans who put a high value on being accepted in elite circles should be embarrassed by the narrowness of their elite friends, who disdain or demonize people whose principles they disagree with, instead of answering their arguments.

There has even been an undercurrent among some Republicans of a sense that it is time to move away from the image of Ronald Reagan, to update the party and court newer and less embarrassing segments of the voters than their current base.

There is certainly a lot to be said for inviting wider segments of the population to join you, by explaining how your principles benefit the country in general, and those segments in particular. But that is fundamentally different from abandoning your principles in hopes of attracting new votes with opportunism.

No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.

The teachers' unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.

Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.

There seemed, for an all too brief moment, that Michael Steele might have been the one to provide such much overdue articulation-- and possibly he still might, but only if he stays out of the Republican trap of trying to appease opponents by throwing supporters to the wolves.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/the_republican_civil_war.html

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Good Ideas

During winter months, I work out 10 minutes on the treadmill and lift weights at seven stations four mornings a week. Over the years, during the spring through fall months, I racked up about 2,000 miles on my road bike. This level of exercise helps account for why, at 73 years, I'm in such good health and physical fitness. So my question to you is whether you think regular exercise is a good idea. I think the answer is definitely yes, if nothing other than its beneficial effects on health care costs. Since exercise is a good idea, would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?

Instead of simply saying, "Williams, you're a lunatic!" and rejecting such a congressional mandate out of hand, let's ask why it should be rejected. We should keep in mind that there's precedent for congressionally mandated measures to protect our health and safety. Seatbelt and helmet laws are examples. If you're in an accident and wind up a vegetable, you will be a burden on taxpayers; therefore, it's argued, Congress has a right to mandate seatbelt and helmet usage. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to people who might burden our health care system because of obesity or sedentary lifestyles? If it is a good idea for Congress to force us to buckle up and wear a helmet on a motorcycle, isn't it also a good idea to force us to regularly exercise?

There is only one question to ask were there to be a debate whether Congress should mandate regular exercise. Whether regular exercise is a good idea or a bad idea is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question is: Is it permissible under the Constitution? That means we must examine the Constitution to see whether it authorizes Congress to mandate exercise. From my reading, the Constitution grants no such authority.

You say, "Aha, Williams, you've blown it this time. What about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress shall provide for the 'general welfare of the United States.'? Surely, healthy Americans contribute to the nation's general welfare."

That's precisely the response I'd expect from your average law professor, congressman or derelict U.S. Supreme Court justice. Let's look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause.

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

If you compare the vision of our nation's founders to the behavior of today's Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.

What to do? Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the General (federal) Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That bit of Jeffersonian advice is dangerous. While Congress does not have constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/GoodIdeas.htm

. . . I think the healthiest thing for the GOP will be a very heavily contested run for the 2012 presidency where their candidates are forced to talk about solutions and not who is the best at being a republican, conservative, or a right winger.

Debra law has, by implication, given us all an example of presisely the kind of idealogical fervor and intolerance of which she assuses conservatives. She, of course, only hopes that the Democrat Congress and our new president won't fall victim to the hubris that too often attends sudden vistory and the venality that attends power. Unfortunatelky for her - and all of us - both appear to be happening very quickly and even very early in the game.

Debra law has, by implication, given us all an example of presisely the kind of idealogical fervor and intolerance of which she assuses conservatives.

2. Announce that as long as the economy is in recession there will be no tax increases and propose tax relief for businesses and individuals as the best economic stimulus.

3. Announce that the government will practice as much frugality as possible and avoid all spending that can wait to avoid saddling the tax payers with bigger deficits to pay off and he is prepared to use the veto pen to enforce that policy.

Yes I know what he says that he thinks, but even a cursory reading of honest American history would show that raising taxes in time of a slowing economy, let alone recession, is imprudent if not insane; and doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the annual deficit is neither a way to positively stimulate the economy nor fiscally responsible.

Really? Who has he cut taxes for? I sure haven't seen my tax bill go down any. Have you? Where?

And according to what I read, there will be a lot of new taxes beginning next year including higher rates on income and capital gains for some, and loss of some critical deductions for some that so far I haven't seen anybody except extreme leftists approve. Not a smart plan when the country is in shaky financial shape.

Okay, I had forgotten about the tax rebate. It has been structured as a payroll deduction this time rather than the government mailing out checks to everybody, so I, as a self-employed person, won't be seeing any of that until we file our taxes, if then. It isn't a permanent tax cut though, and it remains to be seen how much of that will be offset by his cap and trade scheme will raise energy costs to reduce that credit--he admits it will increase those costs--and everybody pays those costs. And it remains to be seen how much his intention to sock it to the rich with higher tax rates and reduced deductions will affect my bottom line too as those "rich" folks are generally the bread and butter for a lot of us doing business and they do pass as much as possible of their higher costs on down the line so that the little people wind up paying more or receiving less.

If you compare the vision of our nation's founders to the behavior of today's Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.

What to do? Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the General (federal) Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That bit of Jeffersonian advice is dangerous. While Congress does not have constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/GoodIdeas.htm

Not fear mongering. I didn't say I didn't survive. And I didn't suggest that I won't survive now. I haven't suggested that businesses won't make it under Obama. It is dishonest to portray what I did say in that manner.

But tax breaks for the 'rich' benefitted me before even though I have never been monetarily rich. And taxes targeting the rich have affected my bottom line negatively before even though the taxes weren't directed at me. You see, I speak from experience. You seem to be speaking from mostly theory and talking points or I think you wouldn't speak as you speak.