The American Spectator

BJW| 2.27.09 @ 4:11PM

Is there NOT a time when you all here at AmSpec are not depressed?

thirteen28| 2.27.09 @ 4:25PM

We're ONE MONTH into the Obama administration, 20 months away from the mid-terms, and 44 months away from the next presidential election. We have plenty of time to get a message out, not to mention that we need to see how events play out in order to determine the landscape in which the message will be delivered.

If we get to October 2010 and still don't have a message, then you can get depressed. February 2009 is a little early for that.

Seigfried Xanten| 2.27.09 @ 4:29PM

That has been a problem for years. Reagan's team thought about the situation and came out with a complete economic approach. Today's stripped down "economic conservatism" is nothing more than knee jerk tax cuts. Very few in the party understand Reagan's principles. Liberal Republicans have cut them out.

Mary| 2.27.09 @ 4:48PM

John Avalon has a piece at the Daily Beast that chronicles Conservatives "defiance," "pridefulness" and lack of ability to define conservatism. His piece makes a lot of sense.

You can see by any conservative chatboard that whatever held the factions together is gone.

And the truth is that the base can't win without some swing voters, and libertarian republicans can't win without the base.

That's a recipe for Democrat/Left dominance for as far as the eye can see.

The factions detest one another. I don't know how you change that.

RSM's post on younger conservatives is hopeful though.

There are many of us who have libertarian leanings but we want neither suffocating dogma nor, as Kirk said, a bottomless ideology.

For all the grief that Palin took, and I'm not holding her up as a great hope, she's not an ideologue at all. And Obama is an ideologue, par excellence.

We'll see how his plans for the Country turn out over these next two years.

But if conservative factions get it good and hard they will have deserved it.

Ran| 2.27.09 @ 5:05PM

Mr. Tabin,
With due respect, Conservatives and America are under many simultaneous existential threats: Our banks are being hijacked, our military enemies sense real weakness and vulnerability, our borders are re-supplying social dependents Liberals refuse to bear themselves, our European allies are collapsing under their own socialist burdens, our economy is tanking as new taxes are being imposed, our First and Second Amendments are under threat from ACORN and the UN, our sovereignty and our very Constitution being dissolved before our eyes by an Administration being lead by a man who seems to have lost his birth-certificate, etc. etc. and and...

One was hoping to find focussed debates?

I'm not at CPAC, so I'll accept your view... But man, there is a LOT happening here in the grass roots. Tea Time, with a twist.

Red Phillips| 2.27.09 @ 5:25PM

"our military enemies sense real weakness and vulnerability"

Ran, that is the least of our worries. What has Obama done that is not a status quo continuation of the Bush administration? Obama is a liberal internationalist. Bush was a neoconservative internationalist. What we need is a principled non-interventionist. Someone who realizes that we don't have "military enemies" who could exploit any perceived weakness or vulnerability even if they were there. Is Iraq going to fly over and bomb DC? What military enemies represent an "existential threat" to the US? It is just absurd. The Cold War is over. Embrace non-interventionism.

saraforamerica| 2.27.09 @ 6:26PM

Ran,

Great post. I agree completely. Right now most of us are in shock at what is happening. Overwhelmed, really.

A coherent message will emerge.

Siegfried Xanten| 2.27.09 @ 6:29PM

Obama's birth certificate has been available and on the web for months. I'm stunned that there are still conspiracy theories floating around about it.

Jeremiah| 2.27.09 @ 6:32PM

As the presiding and unrepentant liberal around here, I don't expect to be heeded much. But poster Mary above makes some sense.

Limbaugh's audience numbers at the very most around 20 million (he claims). It may actually significantly less, depending on how you crunch the numbers.

No matter what, that's a very small percentage of the total electorate -- even though it's huge for a talk radio audience.

Sooner or later, you'll have to learn how David Brooks fits in, and appeal to people with solutions that seem to matter in the 21st century. "Government is bad" is not a promising message in an age where government is all that protects America's cities against a terrorist bent on detonating a nuclear weapon.

In increasingly knowledge-based economy, education becomes increasingly crucial to economic growth: will education be conducted by private companies according to free market principles when the Conservative Revolution comes? Will that go as well as it did for the hundreds of years we tried it before the creation of our public school systems?

There definitely are smart conservatives out there with good ideas. As a liberal, I always try to be open to them, and sometimes I'm even persuaded -- or at least nearly persuaded. But conservatives definitely need a new approach.

And the rhetoric. Jeez, Louise. If all conservatives can do is blame everything on the "drive by media," and ACORN, I doubt they'll get very far.

Siegfried Xanten| 2.27.09 @ 7:38PM

"conservatives definitely need a new approach."

Yes, I believe that today's conservatives are not trying the old approach. For example, neglect is not what "free market" means. What George Bush did with the economy made as much sense as a referee putting the whistle in his pocket and walking off the court right in the middle of a basketball game. That's not conservatism.

Right now a large part of the Republican leadership are actually Democratic on most issues, but want a single issue like fighting Muslims. That seems to be the main focus of most Republican leaders now, fighting a Christian vs. Muslim holy war. Most of the other "conservative" stuff is mostly fake (which is why it never passes Congress), and is just to keep the rank & file's votes & money coming in.

Interested Conservative| 2.27.09 @ 8:54PM

Jeremiah - interesting that you mention Limbaugh and Brooks, unbidden and without prior reference.

I don't know that they represent "factions" within the GOP, much less "conservatism". Whatever Rush's numbers are, they're huge, far surpassing any of his peers, however and whoever they may be, and recall he was an honorary member of the GOP house of '94. His influence is undeniable, continuing, and likely growing - just listen in and you can sense what he sees coming. Brooks, much less so on any of those grounds. Steele is a better barometer, if he can truly make any headway in the NE - the NJ and VA governor's races will tell a lot.

Then, to proceed to two areas where the democrats don't seem to focused, nuclear threats and education, how are their approaches new or different, even from GOP positions? Obama's foreign and security policies seem to largely echo, if faintly, Bushes (which were hardly conservative, if republican), and the education policy seems to consist of simply spending a whole lot. That may help marginally, but it's certainly no different or pathbreaking in trying to reform or even identify future education policy needs or options.

As simple as GOP positions can be characterized as "lower taxes", "free markets", or even Siegfried's fixation on religious warring, they look positively sophisticated when analyzed next to the blizzard of buzz words and good intentions which Obama wants to float in with a budget tsunami.

There will be more change at the '10 mid- terms, and maybe even some hope as well.

jharp| 2.27.09 @ 9:17PM

'There's a whole lot of talk about strategy and getting the message out, but surprisingly little about what the message ought to be.'

Bingo. And there you have it. Well stated.

Is it conservative's don't what the message is or they are just afraid to admit what the message is.

Me thinks that latter. I mean, c'mon, they've been selling BS for 2 or 3 decades. People have caught on.

Billy Bob| 2.27.09 @ 9:26PM

As long as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Joe T. Plumber, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Michael Savage, and all of the loons leaving comments on "Human Events" are the faces, words, and voices of conservatism, your agonies have just begun and your message, such as it is, was burned into the public psyche by Ms. Palin. Until you figure out how to undo that and present conservatism as an intellectually rational concept, you are doomed.
-
Put another way, one of you is in the position of having to tell Field Marshal Keitel that his fly is open. Good luck.

jharp| 2.27.09 @ 9:26PM

Ran| 2.27.09 @ 5:05PM

Mr. Tabin,

'Our banks are being hijacked'

Good grief! What in the heck are you talking about?

Our banks are insolvent. They are free to follow the law any time they choose.

They are simply begging for a handout for the common shareholders.

Jeremiah| 2.28.09 @ 1:25AM

Interested Conservative --

My point was about the larger philosophical underpinnings of so-called "conservatism."

If you go to the people and say, as Reagan did, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government IS the problem," you'll get applause and hoots at your little conservative rallies.

But for the rest of the country, the vast, vast majority, government is seen as capable of an important, even vital role in American life.

The terrorist threat is a case in point. Shrink the government so small "you could drown it in a bathtub" and you're hardly left with the multi-layered, dynamic power necessary to defeat Al Quaeda. Dropping bombs on Arabia sure as hell isn't going to accomplish that: you need soft power, international cooperation and diplomacy, education exchange programs, intelligence, multiple overlapping security agencies, first responders, a sound infrastructure, and so on -- all things that the free market is really bad at efficiently producing.

Same with education and a new energy policy. Free markets just don't do some things well, and the 25 years this country has spent worshiping at the alter of the market's Invisible Hand, as though it will do our work for us, has led us down a blind alley.

To think differently you seriously have to blind yourself to the realities this country will be facing over the next 20 or 30 years.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.28.09 @ 8:21AM

Mr. Tabin, I have only one short comment.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In plain English, just cause you didn't see any wonkish policy debates at one event doesn't necessarily mean that there are no policy debates going on anywhere.

Please get a little perspective.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 8:36AM

Ran's rant is indicative of the problem for the party. Every item listed is what the party is against and nothing listed is what the party is for. Mary is certainly correct that those of us who are libertarian leaning Republicans cannot stand the ideological rigidness and religious rantings of the whacky hard right. We want a fiscally conservative party that actually believes in liberty to the point of letting the individual make their own decisions about everything including abortion and gay marriage.

In addition, we want solutions not a laundry list of "no's". Why not become the party of non-political, pragmatic solutions? Why not become the party of the market economy with flat tax proposals? Why not become the party of fact with true fiscal analyses of tax cuts and spending rather than being ideologically devoid of rational thought? Why not become the party for ALL Americans rather than the party for religious extremists?

Ted Agnew| 2.28.09 @ 8:38AM

I heard plenty of ideas yesterday starting with AGGRESSIVE tax cuts, which work every time that they are tried. I heard school choice, nuclear energy, AGGRESSIVE drilling, no cap and trade, etc. Conservatives should NOT be intimidated by being known as the "no" party when they are saying to to insanity and our own destruction. Once again the left and mushy Susan Collins scatterbrained moderates are setting the boundries of the debate, which should not be allowed or tolerated.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 9:27AM

Ted, tax cuts don't work -- that is a myth. Do you want proof? Here is a chart of GDP over time in real dollars:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Notice that the economy does NOT grow MORE with tax cuts than tax increases. Furthermore, tax cuts only result in a huge increase in debt which I consider to be immoral:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Regarding school choice -- that is not limited to Republicans as Obama supports that as well. Aggressive drilling? We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. Aggressive drilling is more of a rant than reality. Nuclear energy is a point of difference, but only one. I still don't see a coherent economic strategy with new ideas.

Ted Agnew| 2.28.09 @ 9:57AM

The fact is that nearly all credible economists and historians credit the JFK/Johnson tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and even the Shrub tax cuts for great stimulation and growth. SPENDING is the problem, as the GOP is now acknowledging.

It is senseless and illogical to say that taking my money from me and sending it to Washington is good for the economy. That is money that I otherwise would have spent on consumer goods or entertainment.

Obama SAYS he is for choice but the left is already conspiring to take it away in DC. You have to IGNORE Obama’s lying mouth and words and only watch his ACTIONS as a far left radical. This is where he has made fools out of the masses, talking like a reasonable mainstream man while governing from the destructive lunatic left.

ANWR is not the only place to go, we can go offshore and even go for oil shale in the west while also going nuclear. The left’s answer to any energy development is “NO!” Cheap energy is the life blood of a free society and the ultimate civil rights issue.

Obama was GLAD gas was $4, look it up.

Ultimately, the GOP is going to have to just sit there and wait for the left to blow itself up, which it is already well on its way to doing. Like always, they go nuts with their lethal combination of unbridled ignorance and arrogance and the soccer mom’s on prozac that our country revolves around will finally get scared, if not disappointed.

Again, the GOP is talking free markets, low spending, energy development, school choice and no to this insulting insanity from the left.

The truth is that the left is bankrupt of good ideas, their only agenda is an aggressive power grab to promote hard left policies that will suffocate and destroy freedom and the economy while they increase dependence and reliance upon themselves.

I think it may be time for a red/blue national divorce.

Thomas| 2.28.09 @ 10:10AM

Here we go again. The Libertarians are complaining that Conservatives want to force them to do things like speak the truth, stop driving while intoxicated, confine themselves to a single spouse at a time and stop killing unborn human beings for their own convenience. The big government Republicans want to increase the size of government to help people. Of course, now that they have gotten their wish, we learn that what they meant was that THEY are the ones who should be using the government to help people.

But, most conservatives only want to be left alone to enjoy raising their families, attend the religious institution of their choice, be relatively safe from attack [both individually and collectively], and to be allowed to enjoy life in general. Now many of them have some quirks, such as obeying the law, giving and receiving a full day's work for a full day's pay, demanding honesty from their elected officials and not killing human beings, born or unborn, unless their continued existence is a serious threat to the rest of society.

From government, all they really want is for the roads to be fixed, the toilets to flush and the lights to work and to be relatively safe from attack [this includes the right to provide for their own personal defense]. They don't ask for charity, either public or private, and yet they are the most charitable group in America. So what is not to like about Conservatives?

Oh, and from a practical standpoint for the Republican party, it can't win elections without them. So keep on telling us all how the libertarians, the Country Club [liberal] Republicans, the moderate [liberal] swing voters, the if-it-feels-good-do-it crowd is going to lead us all to the promised land of fiscal and moral paradise and that they do not need the evil conservatives involved. And we'll continue to see the current descent into the glorious worker's paradise of Amerika. I love you comrades.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 10:13AM

Ted, just saying something doesn't make it true. The facts remain that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT stimulate the economy. Here is a summary of Reaganomics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Again, GDP is the measure of the growth of our economy and here, again, is the chart of GDP:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

In point of fact, there was more growth under the tax INCREASES of Clinton than the tax cuts of Reagan. I've given you facts and charts backing up my point. Can you do the same for yours? And please don't point to conservative blogs, but to charts and data.

Spending is, indeed, a problem. But if you actually understood the budget, you'd realize that over 80% of the budget is in medicare, social security, interest, and military spending. The reason politicians don't cut the budget is because they know they can't be elected if they really cut government spending. Again, spending cuts are a myth in the reality of politics.

And by the way, unregulated markets are not free since completely unregulated markets result in fraud and abuse. The GOP always talks about low spending but refuses to do it. Instead, they provide tax cuts without spending cuts which end in high debt. That is immoral. We need a balanced budget. If that means we need higher taxes, so be it.

I watched a lot of CPAC. If you want insanity, just watch some of the comments. The sanest person there seemed to be Joe the Plumber. Now that's scary.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 10:24AM

Thomas, your definition of conservatism, except for your religious extremism, is more libertarian than Republican. In fact, if you ask most Democrats, they would agree that their philosophy is the same but that we should care about our fellow citizens who are older, infirm, out of work, or in poverty.

Thus, your rant is meaningless. Libertarians are the TRUE conservatives as they want government out of their lives in ALL respects and you want the government to force your religious views on all of us. The difference between libertarians and Republicans is, of course, social security and medicare as well as interventionalist versus noninterventionalist policies.

That said, Thomas. It was a great rant...

Seymour Kleerly| 2.28.09 @ 10:27AM

Young Conservatives are the Republican's only hope now. They have had less time being indroctrinated to hate Liberals(regardless of the merit of the issue) and will be much less likely to get caught way out on a flimsy Limbaugh.

Ted Agnew| 2.28.09 @ 10:41AM

There are numerous sources that prove Reaganomics was a success, google it.

You can manipulate numbers and stats all day, Bob. I do it all the time when I write for online casinos regarding sports handicapping.

I watched CPAC Friday and was very encouraged. Newt stole the show. He is the most brilliant brain and talented speaker on the right. He is superb on the Sunday shows as well. The problem is that he is a low life scum bag and was clearly out played by Slick Willie. Not a good track record.

Anyone that thought CPAC was insane would himself have to be considered insane. It was all rational, logical, and well thought out ideas.

Mitt is my man and there was nothing at all unreasonable about what he said. But he came off flat compared to Newt.

Spending and entitlements are the problem. When social security was invented the life expectancy was 66 or so. Its no longer realistic. Shrub at least confronted it but was laughed out of town. Nobody has the stones to tackle it.

We need to face the fact that we have to take care of ourselves and to forget programs like social security but since our country is dominated by eunuchs and soccer moms on prozac that will never happen.

Shrub was deservedly bashed, which also had to be done.

I agree with Bob on the need to regulate the markets, as Mitt touched on, but not SUFFOCATE them.

How anyone can defend the unbridled insanity of the arrogant/ignorant Obama machine is beyond belief. To those who last November said “well it cant get any worse” all I can tell you is that you had better open your freaking eyes and get a grip. You ain’t seen nothing yet!

Damn Newt was awesome, if only he wasn’t such a scumbag.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 10:57AM

Actually, Ted, I have studied many analyses of Reaganomics and I cannot find a non-political analysis that says, in retrospect, it worked. Here is an article by an economist that was part of the Reagan administration and his analysis is that Reaganomics had mixed results. I suggest you read it to get educated:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

Of course, I could have referenced the many left leaning economists who said Reagonomics was a disaster, but I wanted to get a right leaning one who actually understands economics. Whether you think it was a success or not depends on how important you think debt is. I think debt is the MAJOR issue and thus I devalue Reaganomics more than both.

By the way, we do have agreement on Mitt Romney -- he was my man. I do not like, however, how he has changed to appeal to the ultra right wingers. When he was Governor, I thought he did a good job and had the right balance. His problem is that there is not enough red meat in him for the religious right whackos.

Interested Conservative| 2.28.09 @ 11:18AM

Jeremiah - your concluding sentence confuses me - willing blindness to think differently to face reality?

Anyway - your description of issues is very sound, but how does Obama's program, or the democratic congress' - take your pick, begin to address any of those issues?

If anything, Ron Paul's positions seem to go to your concerns better than either what you consider traditional conservatism or current "big government" democrats.

To pick on of your examples, do you seriously think the government should pre-dominate in creating a "new energy policy"? When has it ever done so efficiently? Which prior "new energy policy" did the government develop in any sense in lieu of the market - steam, coal, oil? I suppose you could make a case for nuclear, but that really gets into the military industrial complex, and the government has spent the last 50 years basically killing it.

Finally, your omitting the qualifier to Reagan's quote, though the spirit is certainly different from the present administration. Wonder what Bill C. thinks about the era of big government being over?

Thomas| 2.28.09 @ 12:12PM

Actually, Bob, most Conservatives are rather libertarian, with some notable exceptions. You seem to get hung up on "religious" beliefs with regard to conservatives. Once again most conservatives do not attempt to force others to adopt their religious beliefs. They simply do not like it when others refuse to allow them to peacefully express their beliefs. As to Libertarians being the True Conservatives, that is patently untrue. True Libertarians are actually anarchists who wish that government did not exist at all. No government, no governmental intrusion in their lives. This, of course, is impractical in a human society, as are most libertarians. A libertarian who espouses any kind of government control is at best a libertarian lite, or maybe even a conservative. As to welfare, social security, and taking care of the less fortunate, conservatives believe in all of that. They just feel that it should be done privately and on an individual basis.

Now, I have to congratulate you on finally grasping one of my most important points. Conservatives are not Republicans. They will vote for whomever most closely espouses their beliefs. In the past, that has been the Republican Party. It may well be that way in the future, then again it may not. The point is that without conservative votes, Republican candidates generally lose. It is up to the leadership of the Republican party if they wish to embrace the basic ideals of most conservatives and win, or ignore them and continue to lose.

I apologize for the rant, but this constant belief that a political party can be all things to all people is absurd. The Dems are virtually monolithic in their goals and objectives. The Party simply wants to control every aspect of everyone's life and the leadership of that party will promise everything to everybody, then simply ignore what they have promised and do as they please. The Republicans at least make an attempt at truth and candor. Though it is does not sit well with conservatives when Republicans seem to have an epiphany and go from a liberal stance on an issue to a conservative one just before election time. Tends to undermine that little thing called trust. So the Republicans have to figure out exactly what they want the Federal government to do besides provide for the common defense, control the borders, mediate disputes between the states and minimally regulate trade and then propose it. Then find a candidate who has articulated that stance throughout his, or her, public life run him. People will vote for it or not as they see fit.

Jeremiah| 2.28.09 @ 12:25PM

Interested Conservative --

While the market is responsible for some innovations with respect to energy, the government has always guided major changes. Atomic power wasn't developed in someone's garage; publicly funded research and development is responsible for it.

Same with the use of oil and coal. The term "free market" when it comes to oil is almost ludicrous when the US government will dispatch air-craft carriers worth billions to ensure markets and reserves.

The forms of energy most amenable to decentralized, laissez faire use -- sun, wind, geothermal -- are rigorously opposed by the Drill Baby Drill crowd.

No matter how you look at, the government -- through scientific exploration, tax policy, foreign policy -- will be central to the direction we take with respect to energy. That's why both parties talk about forming an "energy policy," and neither talks about forming a "bratwurst sandwich policy." Some things are in fact best left to the free market.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 12:26PM

I have no problem when the religious right expresses their beliefs. However, I do have a problem when they try to enact laws regarding those beliefs.

Regarding "truth", I find little on Rush, and Hannity that resembles the "truth". Furthermore, I find a lot on Olberman that stretches the "truth" too far. "Truth" seems to be in the eye of the beholder and objective analysis be damned. This is why the fastest growing affiliation is "independent". I do not believe a candidate that calls for true fiscal conservatism, i.e., the reformation of medicare and social security and plans to reduce the debt while telling the truth about tax cuts can get elected. Republicans want tax cuts but aren't willing to cut spending. That is NOT candor. If they are unwilling to cut spending, then they must raise taxes. THAT, is candor!

And I do get hung up about the religious aspects as social conservatives, the activists in the party, seem to like unknowledgeable hacks and uneducated candidates. Anti-intellectualism has left the Republican party with a shell than means very little. That is why we are currently the party of "no" with little in the way of NEW ideas.

Mary| 2.28.09 @ 1:01PM

The Libertarians are complaining that Conservatives want to force them to do things like speak the truth...

A certain species of libertarian is not really concerned with the State acting or being where it shouldn't be. They may not want the bureaucrat in their bedroom, but they don't mind the bureaucrat inserting himself in the examining room between doctor and patient.

It's more about offended tastes and sensibilities that are a lot less rooted in reason than their protestations admit to.

Man's predilection, attachment, addiction -you choose- to the supernatural will take one form or another but it won't be eradicated. The green movement is a good illustration. The vast majority of its adherents cannot credibly critique the science themselves and as such they offer it an act of faith. They are fundamentalists in this regard.

They're not part of Mencken's "civilized minority." A minority not confined to a particular class, but an eternal minority made of men of decency, honor and courage. It's an educated minority, but not in the simplistic way the term educated is presently bandied about. Sort of a renaissance minority that prizes free thought and liberty above all, and detests fraud and sophistry.

Per the Introduction to Mencken's Notes On Democracy, he praised William Graham Sumner's understanding of the Forgotten Man. Sumner was a social Darwinist. I wonder if Amity Shlaes book on FDR, also called the Forgotten Man, takes anything from Sumner?

Anyway, Sumner's Forgotten Man describes him as "the normal, educated, well-disposed, unfrenzied, enlightened citizen of the middle minority," "sure of himself in the world." Marion Elizabeth Rodgers who wrote the Introduction notes that his "virtues include initiative, enterprise, self-reliance, courage, hard work, punctuality, and thrift." And that he's curious and essentially unbowed by any orthodox imperative.

This civilized man is under threat because he's the only one who can carry the day, fiscally, morally, spiritually. But, his independence is distrusted by ideologues across the spectrum. And that would include the lot of men of offended tastes as well.

You know, C.S. Lewis is a treasure trove because he's a historian by inclination. And because of that his efforts are unconstrained. In one of his Screwtape Letters he wrote the following:

**"the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I'm as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they."**

Mencken's civilized minority and Lewis' middle class is the group totalitarians despise the most because they're individuals. They don't need the totalitarians, and it's always been fashionable to make war on them.

Today's Left is the RC Church of old. It seeks a Total Society. It's also a group of heresy hobbyists and hunters.

You're never an ex-RC. Not really. It's like going to Harvard or Yale. You just went; you just are.
I'm grateful for Western Civlization, and I have to be grateful to the Church. And I am.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 1:25PM

Mary, while I agree with you on the left, the extreme right is simply a mirror image of the left in their pursuit of belief over reason. With regard to libertarians, you say:

"...but they don't mind the bureaucrat inserting himself in the examining room between doctor and patient."

Actually, they do mind if they are true libertarians. At the present, it is insurance companies, lawyers and our current form of health care that comes between doctor and patient.

By the way, a great number of left leaning liberals are also grateful to the Church according to the polls.

Mary| 2.28.09 @ 1:51PM

Mary, while I agree with you on the left, the extreme right is simply a mirror image of the left in their pursuit of belief over reason.

I agree.

Actually, they do mind if they are true libertarians. At the present, it is insurance companies, lawyers and our current form of health care that comes between doctor and patient.

I don't call your word into question, but anyone who voted for Obama had to see that this intrusion was nigh. And who will protect us now?

By the way, thanks for your Vietnam Service. I owe you and yours a lot.

I'll tell you this political and cultural bottoming out has wiped out any trace of jingoism from my mind and heart.

Helen Jenkins| 2.28.09 @ 4:04PM

Sorry Mr. Tabin that you are so depressed. For the first time in a very, very long time, America and her conservative citizens are on the right track. When Obama won the election, I was soooo depressed. Then, I remembered that America was built by pre-dominantly cast-offs ( not aristocratic elites ) : Europe's unwanted Caucasians, Asia' wandering Mongoloids and Africa's collateral from tribal warfare sold into slavery by their brethen. Yes, America has had her share of problems and has made many, serious mistakes. But, America has more than atoned for slavery to become the greatest nation on earth. The Americans who truly love America and all that she stands for, who willingly step up to die for - if needed to maintain her liberty and freedom. The crazy left-wing America haters who really would like to replace our liberty and democratic form of Government with totalitarianism steeped in " sharia Law ". Today, Americans are stepping up to take back their/ our country. CPAC can be of tremendous assistance as researchers, fact-checkers and cheerleaders, but, in the final analysis, Americans must reassert their power - people power. This is our government, not the politicians who have become addicted to power and forgotten they serve at the pleasure of the voter, not the reverse! It's been a long time coming — but the grassroots are finally becoming aroused. The stirrings may be small and barely detectable, but the American Revolution began with small discontent into world-changing political tsunami : 1776 Declaration of Independence ( Read Patrick Henry's Speech in the Virginia Convention ) . So, Mr. Tabin, be depressed, if you must, it really is irrelevant! The real power is on the move !

axbucxdu| 2.28.09 @ 5:14PM

Re: Bob
In constant dollars the seasonally adjusted GDP figures you supplied indicate the following:

Administration Annualized Average GDP Growth

Truman's 2nd term (1949 - 1953)* 5.9328%

Eisenhower (1953 - 1961) 3.1564%

Kennedy/Johnson (1961 - 1969) 4.5822%

Nixon/Ford (1969 - 1977) 3.1190%

Carter (1977 - 1981) 2.2494%

Reagan (1981 - 1989) 3.6855%

George Bush 41 (1989 - 1993) 2.0901%

Clinton (1993 - 2001)** 3.3097%

George Bush 43 (2001 - 2008)*** 2.1802%

*Since budgets are approved essentially one year ahead of the calendar year they are implemented, I have used GDP figures for the October following each innauguration to demarcate a particular administration's policy influence on the economy. In other words, Obama cannot be held accountable for the economic effects of FY2009's tax rates and budget, as these were submitted by Bush. He'll get his time in the box soon enough this coming October.

**One note on Clinton's numbers: His administration began as the country was already out of the 90' - '91 recession and into the start of a new business cycle, and it ended before the '01 -03 contraction.

***As a corollary, the GDP figures are obviously not available for Oct 2009, so in this analysis Bush II's numbers will not be finalized until then. Therefore his growth figures are annualized for the seven years indicated.

Given the above data that you yourself provided, now what can we say?

Whatever it was that Kennedy did, there was a marked improvement in economic growth from '61 - '69 with respect to the previous eight years. Tax cuts anyone?

Bob wrote: "In point of fact, there was more growth under the tax INCREASES of Clinton than the tax cuts of Reagan."

This statement is demonstrably false using your own data. Perhaps you can provide something from left wing websites that paint a different picture? Next:

Bob wrote: "Spending is, indeed, a problem...Again, spending cuts are a myth in the reality of politics...We need a balanced budget. If that means we need higher taxes, so be it."

Then according to your logic we are all doomed since you accord spending the highest budgetary priority. All else like borrowing and taxes are subordinate to your "practical reality". I suggest that it is your stance that is immoral and it is also mathematically (i.e. practically) untenable as we shall soon see. Unfortunately, the hard teacher known as experience will teach us who the real masters are...hint: It won't be spending...

Basil Plumley| 2.28.09 @ 5:41PM

@ axbucxdu

An internet High-Five to you. That was spectacularly well done. I am eagerly anticipating a Bob rebuttal.

I am calling my broker on Monday to sell my entire position in Bob's Fortune 100 Company.

Interloper| 2.28.09 @ 7:01PM

What is interesting about this thread is how it started out with at least a putative discussion about ideas, but quickly descended into lengthy diatribes demonizing Democrats, especially President Obama. The latter seems to be the only real message of the Right.

I've enjoyed reading coverage of the CPAC conference, particularly at mainstream sites. There you get the real flavor of the thing. A gathering that is half the kind of college students who can't get a date on a Friday night. (Finally, they have somewhere to go!) A quarter Lyndon LaRouche, Ron Paul, and Constitution Party loyalists. The majority of the remainder too off their rockers to characterize as anything but just plain nuts. You know something is truly awry when Joe the Plumber is being hailed as the savior of conservatism. Heck, even Sarah Palin and Piyush Jindal are wise enough to avoid CPAC like the plague this time around.

Stuart | 2.28.09 @ 9:43PM

Mary, some thought provoking posts. Regardless of the term used, the class of people who don't buy a set of doctrines and an instruction manuel for their easy application to any problem affecting society is always an imperiled class. Well, imperiled in terms of its ability to engage their talents and ideas fully without being stifled by the unimaginative and ideologically pious.
With Obama at the helm we're threatened by the imposition of his "total society" as you put it.
But I worry that the Republican party will continue to drive away independent thinkers if a narrow vision of socially conservatism wins out.
On the other hand, there are serious issues of culture and morality that many libertarian types give short shrift. I'm going on at great length, but I really don't know what to make of how we should
allocate room for the different factions(I'm not sure any metaphor about allocating space isn't simplistic), but one bright spot is that Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and that host of authoritarian types in the Justice Dept. will give us plenty of opportunity to talk about the basic values of our democracy and culture.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.28.09 @ 11:03PM

Hey, Interloper... did ya ever think that maybe Jindal and Palin have real jobs and decided that taking care of the business of their states is more important in these troubled times than attending a conference this far in advance of the next Presidential election, and that that--not the merits of CPAC or lack thereof--are why they stayed home.

But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of smearing the GOP's rising stars, hmmm? The earlier you smear them the worse their reputation will be in 2012, right?

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 12:13AM

Stuart,

I think that the danger the left poses is greater because there's no break-wall on the left. Their standards, when there at all, are inverted. Moynihan knew this decades ago when he coined the phrase defining deviancy down.

I don't often contribute to threads on economics because my knowledge is limited to experience and observation. And I don't often contribute to threads on abortion because I'm all too aware of the weakness of my own position.

To be more specific, if we're to really consider abortion murder in the same way we view the murdering of one adult by another, then why would religious institutions and pro-life advocates treat and call the woman the other victim?

A case we would treat similarly is the case of a 17 year old who murders a man who is beating his mother. But can a fetus be thought of and treated equally as such an aggressor? No.

And why is it that when a baby is wanted it's a baby from day one, when it's not wanted it remains a fetus until it can no longer be confined to the womb?

It's really important, when thinking of social issues, to understand the weakest part of your own argument. It's at that point that progress becomes possible. It's also really important to understand that structural change to age old morality can be a dangerous societal game. Many a sanguine Agnostic, for very good reasons, prefers the societal structure bequeathed by religious man than that bequeathed by post-modern man.

Quite a while back George Will wrote that Americans are philosophically conservative but operationally liberal. And I think that's true.

What's likely to keep the totalitarians at bay is a 80/20 philosophical/operational mix.

Rush Limbaugh gets beaten about the head and shoulders a lot by his critics, but I remember one of his shows back in the early 90s in which he said that a capitalism that is not under-girded by morality cannot work. And I would go farther and say that capitalism without morality leads inexorably to socialism. And that’s what has played out from the economic collapse in October to present.

The greatest danger of socialism lies in the refusal of its adherents to admit to a piecemeal working of its ideas and goals. In other words, it's designed to be ineradicable, results be damned. So I pray that you're right about the fallout of the Pelosi/Reid/Frank triumvirate.

ruth| 3.1.09 @ 3:03AM

Jeez, Louise, Jeremiah, your comments were so...ACORNY. But thanks for your valuable advice for all us conservatives, I'm sure you have our best interests at heart. Right?

ruth| 3.1.09 @ 3:13AM

Interloper, do you always refer to your Obamassiah as Barack Hussein Obama? Just wondering since you're so nit-picky about Jindal's name. Grow up, libtard.

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 9:24AM

axbucxdu, absolutely excellent response. You show the kind of analysis and thought provoking response I admire. Furthermore, you bring up a great point by separating Reagan from Bush41. There is another conclusion you could make from the data, however. Growth under Democrats averaged 4.0193% while growth under Republicans averaged 3.2833%. Furthermore, I would like you to provide the same type of analysis to the debt created under each administration which is also a result of tax cuts:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In addition, I suggest you read the analysis of Reaganomics by one of Reagan's own economists:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

I shall look forward to your analytical response.

Ran| 3.1.09 @ 12:01PM

Mary -
Thank you and please post here more often! I've cut 'n pasted your thread comments for re-reading. I'm relatively new to conservative and libertarian principles and politics. Perhaps I was projecting my own confusion? Anyway, you've said a great deal in this thread that deserves reflection.

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 1:53PM

Mary, here are some points to consider in your argument. First, you must go a step further and define what morality means in the defense of capitalism. Was the deregulation propounded by Rush and the Republicans back in the 90's moral? In hindsight, the answer is a resounding "no". Of course, I worked in the financial services industry in the 90's and I knew where the problems regarding securitization were going, but politicians and pundits, both Democrat and Republican, didn't have a clue. The definition of what is "moral", then, is not entirely clear. I believe Rush in the 90's was talking more about abortion than appropriate regulation.

There are totalitarians on both sides of the political spectrum. Extremists by their very nature tend to be totalitarians. It is just as totalitarian to believe in unfettered free markets as it is to believe in government control.

But take heart in the fact that it is private enterprise that has the primary control over GDP and no right or left government will change that. This rant about socialism is strictly political posturing and scare tactics. Having spent a 35 year career in Fortune 100 multinational companies, I cannot see much change in corporate direction basis Obama policies. What is not publicized much is that the Fed has been taking over undercapitlized banks for decades and no one screamed "socialism" when it was a Republican administration that did it.

There is another issue even larger here that no one has addressed. We have an experiment here in America into decentralized capitalism. Until the 90's, this worked extremely well because we had a well established manufacturing base providing jobs and obtained capital domestically. Starting with Reagan and the huge debt he created (which I consider to be immoral, by the way), we began to receive our capital from foreign nations including China. This increased the portion of our budget called "interest" and forced us to acquiesce to the needs of capital supplying countries.

The real question here is not socialism, but whether the U.S. needs a cohesive development strategy. China and Singapore have one and they have done fantastically well. This need arises because we have moved from an in-country competition to a world competition where we are now competing with other countries for jobs and capital. As an example of this, our infrastructure is crumbling and we are falling behind in education and health care. Decentralized capitalism has been ineffective in addressing these things because long term government investments are always at the bottom of the list.

Thus, the real question is how much government planning is necessary to make us competitive on the world stage. For example, for the first time in history, the right leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying strongly for nationalized health care. Why? Because the current system makes them non-competitive. In addition, they now see the inefficiencies of the current system.

Reagan cut down the expense on infrastructure significantly and it has not been raised since. Our vaunted highway system is now beginning to fail because of the lack of consistent investment. World competition demands that we have a country investment strategy rather than leaving everything up to the individual. Does this mean a larger role for government? Unfortunately, yes.

Obama is addressing this, but not in a conservative way. Conservatives need to recognize these changes and come up with a plan to address these structural and world competition challenges. You don't hear any of this from Rush and friends. I would develop a long term plan that addresses these issues in a planned, and fiscally responsible manner which would be quite different from the Obama budget. All you hear from the right wing whackos right now is "NO" to spending and more tax cuts which have proven NOT to be stimulative. There is a huge opportunity to address these issues in a fiscally responsible manner. I just don't thing Republicans have a leadership group that is capable of understanding these needs. I consider one of the major problems is the social conservative factors in grabbing an anti-intellectual stance and supporting weak minded leaders like Palin, Rush, Hannity, Joe the Plumber, McCain, etc.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 3:54PM

Bob,

As I said, my understanding of economics is based on my own experience and observation, so I don’t normally involve myself in any discussion involving the science (and art, I think) of economics. I don’t really have a lot to offer and I don't like to speak or write about things I know little about.

That said, I’m not sure that the free market and capitalism are one in the same. And the free market, the market in which I exchange a good for another good or a service for a good, etc cannot possibly be totalitarian. It can be amoral. It can be regressive if not under the aegis of a government or Country of laws and not men, but I don’t think you can successfully conflate it with socialism and/or corporatism, which seems a better term for what’s going on right now with possible bank nationalization, nationalization of health care, a kind of uber-nationalization of education, etc.

In 2004 Bernanke gave a speech on the Great Moderation, pretty much concluding that monetary volatility had been solved. How could he make such a claim? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s a real live one.

A moral capitalism or moral capitalists understand and prize first and foremost their fiduciary responsibility to investors, and that responsibility is not distinct from the moral code that undergirds and guides honorable friendships, honorable and successful marriages, etc.

I don’t think what I wrote indicated that I thought the economic collapse that happened in October was just a couple of years in the making. That’s an impossibility. But I’d like to know why neither Bernanke, Paulson, Geitner, Cox couldn’t help avert or minimize this?

If I’m understanding the derivatives problem here, bad was bundled with good for maximum profit and minimum risk, and now the ensuing toxic bundles are rhizomes that require surgical precision -which no one seems to have- in order to delicately excise and separate.

It seems to me that what was lacking was proper oversight. A moral capitalism takes that kind of oversight very seriously.

My reply to you is scatter shot because my post that you responded to deals with the bedrock of men, money and the rule of law, and your response deals with building up that bedrock.

I don’t know what a financial advisor’s background consists of . Whether higher end advisors -such as yourself I’m guessing- are classically trained economists, I don’t know. In my own limited dealings with my own advisors and my experience working with business consultants in an international business setting, I’ve never been able to figure out where solid business practice and counsel begins and marketing ends.

I think every citizen who works and uses government services should pay taxes and that includes those who are not being taxed -outside FICA- right now. To grow that non-paying group even by a small percentage every 4 years is very unwise. And to tax producers in punitive fashion is not only unwise it’s bound to have a demoralizing and contracting effect.

Unless the US can successfully replace that strata of industry that Kodak, Xerox, Bausch and Lomb, etc. occupied, the disparity in wage, and abolition of the lower rungs of the middle class, will continue unabated and that doesn’t bode well for the Country. I don't mean replace in kind. That's possible.

I thought McCain had a good idea insofar as offering re-training opportunities to displaced workers.

You’re right in that Obama is not approaching the problems we face in a conservative manner, but I alluded to that in my post when I wrote of socialism’s incapacity for piecemeal reform.

The best and most honorable thing to do right now is to refrain from demagoguery, fear mongering and ankle-biting. The Country would be much better served, if once, just once, our leaders were willing to experiment in piecemeal fashion, go with what works and be willing to get rid of or modify what doesn’t.

According to what I've read, Sweden has a very good education policy. Every family gets a voucher and gets to choose where to send their kids. We're a Nation, like any other, with needs. But ideology is going to kill us if we don't kill it first.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 3:59PM

I don't mean replace in kind. That's possible.

Should read: That's not possible.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 4:05PM

Ran-

I appreciate the encouragement. I'm no less confused than you.

I think it's imperative that conservatives -what a meaningless term that's become- remain still and think right now. I don't mean they shouldn't speak up.

What I mean is that bromides, tropes and cheer-leading is not the way to go.

Tough times test anyone's ability to think. And a party out of power is no different.

A party that is incapable of honest intropsection, and I don't mean navel-gazing, isn't fit for much.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 4:42PM

A moral capitalist and capitalism.

[H/T: Laura Ingraham show 2/23 ]

Interloper| 3.1.09 @ 4:57PM

CPAC came at a very good time. That gathering of a confederacy of dunces is being directly contrasted with the President Obama's measured, scientific and organized approach to mitigating the multiple crises the nation is embroiled in.

Some supporters of the the President are already running an ad depicting Rush Limbaugh, who even surpassed Joe the Plumber as a 'star' at CPAC, as the real head of the GOP. That should continue. By the time of the next round of elections, the first thing to come to a voter's mind in hearing 'GOP' should be 'Limbaugh.' For most voters, that in itself will be impetus enough to reject the Southern Regional Party. (However, Joe the Plumber will not like Limbaugh stealing his thunder. Expect to see fireworks there.)

Another interesting thing about CPAC is that it paid much of its audience to attend by giving students free or reduced price tickets. One must wonder if some of those young people will see the conference for the ship of fools it is. If so, CPAC will have inadvertently helped create a few thousand more Democrats.

Ran| 3.1.09 @ 5:16PM

Mary, thanks-
I see the "ideology" issue rather differently, or perhaps my understanding of the term is different.

There aren't a lot of successful programs out there - from the New Deal, Great Society, War on Drugs, CRA - just identify one and typically the precise opposite of the stated intention has been the long-term result. They all of them, with few exceptions, share the same ideological core.

Apart from the Military and the Courts, there aren't a lot of government programs at the local, state or federal levels that are not based on the anti-moral principle of taking the earnings of a successful few (by force, if necessary) and redistributing to targeted interest groups.

This ideological premise of "government" as the solution to the problems of the human condition has been accepted for over a century by some. That there is no comprehensive set of doctrines capable of such is just lost on most. It has been tried in many jurisdictions over the last century to abject failure in every case.

The "system" that seems to do the least harm and grow the largest number of new ideas and new careers and general wealth is rather entropic, almost anarchical: the animating contest of Liberty socialists refer to as "capital"-"ism". From this point, I begin to repeat a number of the points you've made here today.

I would like to see someone come along and undo even part of the legislative damage to the social contract. It may take an idealist to do so. It may take the Public's patience for a term or two to achieve it, with a willing and agreeable Congress supporting her. That's why I'm not afraid of a right-wing ideologue, provided their core values are moral and libertarian.

It's not enough to just stand and scream "HALT!" the progress of the cancer... at some point, simply to achieve balance, one has to pull back the other way, and pull hard. To remove even some of the cancer, the pulling will need to be fierce.

Here's the thing: Intuition tells me that a lot of "moderates" and "undecideds" would go with it for a term or two - just simply to see the tug balanced or the game shifted back to what they may feel is "center". Conservatives and Libertarians are certainly NOT going to keep them for long. For twenty plus years, though, we've given the "middle" no credible libertarian / conservative alternative. It's no wonder things have shifted leftwards.

Cheers

ruth| 3.1.09 @ 5:18PM

I felt invigorated by Rush's CPAC speech yesterday. He reminded me, once again, why I am a Conservative: My love of freedom. The overwhelming roar from his Conservative audience affirmed my own delighted response. Thanks, Rush, your wit and wisdom are greatly appreciated.

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 6:23PM

Mary,

"Socialism" is a political overstatement meant to engender fear mongering among the public. The fact is that from an economic perspective, there is not much difference between Reagan and Obama in end result. Do you remember the Savings and Loan crisis where the government took over institutions? Was that socialism?

Most people don't understand the derivatives issue. The key is understanding how these things were valued and why action was not taken. The valuation of derivatives was based upon increasing housing values. As long as housing values increased, there was little risk even with high foreclosures because properties could be sold near the mortgage value. Because of this, mathematically there was little risk in derivatives. The ratings agencies gave them high status because of historical values. Because there seemed to be little risk, unregulated investment banks leveraged these instruments at a 30 to 1 ratio and didn't build up any capital in case there was a decline in housing values.

In my opinion, the major failing was the use of securitization. Through this process, the lender was decoupled from the loan. As long as securitization valuations remained strong, it didn't make any difference to the lender to give loans to people who couldn't afford them because they securitized 100% of these loans immediately thereby giving them no risk.

What most people don't understand is that these lenders sold these loans on a monthly payment basis and told customers that if they couldn't afford the loans in the future, they could just sell their home and get out of them. Very few customers of low end loans were sophisticated enough to understand how the system worked. Once prices started to fall, the Ponzi scheme unraveled quickly because of the leverage of the non-regulated financial institutions.

The market oriented solution to this is for lenders to maintain a significant portion of the risk and to restrict leverage. The canard that Fannie and Freddie caused this is again, political and wrong. In 2006, 70% of subprime/Alt-A loans were owned by people not related to Fannie and Freddie.

So let's drop this "socialism" nonsense. Let's just say that there are conservative solutions that are better than Obama's -- which is true in my opinion. That said, conservatives must find a way to address infrastructure, health care, and education effectively. All of these have been raped by both Republican and Democrat administrations since Reagan and need to be fixed. We cannot compete in a world economy without solving these issues -- especially without a strong manufacturing base.

Bill Bailey| 3.1.09 @ 8:07PM

Tabin, stop whining.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 8:08PM

Ran-

Your last post was a very nice addition to the thread.

And it takes us back to my second post on this thread, and that's the eternal struggle.

The legislative damage that you speak of can be undone but won't be. That's the nature of a creeping socialism. Whether by design or not it becomes ineradicable, and it continues to weaken man instead of making him stronger.

I agree with you on the moderates as well. I've always thought the argument that goes "I vote for the man and not the party" to be bogus. You not only get the man you get the party. Those who voted for Obama get Pelosi and Reid whether they want to or not.

I don't know whether the Country is center left or center right. There's conflicting data on that. But from my own experience in talking and dealing with people there's very little sense that redistributing earnings is immoral. Though if you point it out to them sometimes they'll hem and haw and you get the sense that they get it, but over and above there's a sense of entitlement that lies beyond reason.

In my opinion, the only way a re-ordering or re-thinking of that could occur would be due to debased National circumstances that leave no other option.

This has been a good discussion.

I'm sorry to say that I think conservatives are in for a long period outside the corridors of power. Not that acquiring power is what's most important, but you can't implement any ideas when you've been cast out of those corridors.

Let me close with the hope that we conservatives refrain from eating our own. It's totally destructive and will ensure a delay in our resurgence if one is to be.

Cheers back at you, Ran.

Frosty| 3.1.09 @ 9:16PM

Lots of weak weenies writing for TAS these days. RSM is the only man in the bunch. Too bad; this publication used to pack some punch. For God's sake, stop whining and behave like men, you're making me sick!

Stuart| 3.1.09 @ 9:38PM

I'd agree that the changes the left(and let's not forget there was a time when the Democratic Party was more centrist-I mean, Clinton did take the scalpel to welfare) proposes, the ones Obama in his pomp is declaring we cannot delay, will not be overthrown easily, especially since they enshrine a new social and cultural vocabulary(right to a college education, social justice etc.)

"Many a sanguine Agnostic, for very good reasons, prefers the societal structure bequeathed by religious man than that bequeathed by post-modern man. "
__________________________
That's me, Mary. Should I start an Agnostics for Religious values group? It might be a way for me to keep some money from the taxman.
But seriously, I think it's also a position laid out by Herbert London in book published a few months ago on the attack on religion in the public square in the U.S.
And Melanie Phillips, a Jewish writer in the U.K.,
recently argued on behalf of the Anglican Church not being disestablished.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 10:22PM

Bob,

You wrote:

"Socialism" is a political overstatement meant to engender fear mongering among the public...Do you remember the Savings and Loan crisis where the government took over institutions? Was that socialism?

No because we did what we had to do and then got out. And, if we act in the same manner, go in, do what's necessary and get out, it'll be no harm no foul.

As far as I'm concerned, if we're enroute -even if at this point not at full trot- to a health care system in which a bureaucrat is involved in anyway in determing treatment allowed, or denied, and if that's not a takeover and distribution of a vital good, then I don't know what is. And I think that fits the definition of socialism. Though you might want to call it getting ahold of the infrastructure. If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 10:30PM

Stuart, you wrote:

That's me, Mary. Should I start an Agnostics for Religious values group? It might be a way for me to keep some money from the taxman.

Can I join?

Even the Beatles didn't care much for the Taxman. Don't know how young or old you are, but if you haven't heard/read Taxman, here you go, and take care.

Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you drive to city,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Don't ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don't want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

And my advice to
Those who die.
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.
(Taxman!)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman,
And you're working for no one but me.
(Taxman!)

Mary| 3.1.09 @ 10:37PM

Oh, and Stuart, I read part of London's piece awhile back it was excerpted. And Melanie Phillips is a regular read for me, along w/Peter Hitchens. He had a great piece following the election.

I'd love to have the Telegraph delivered to my door every morning.

Seymour Kleerly| 3.1.09 @ 11:58PM

Hey Interloper, You mention a confederacy of dunces. Why don't you consider sending each one a "Magic Dunce Cap" ?

Jeremiah| 3.2.09 @ 2:19AM

The only magic that Interloper knows is magic mushrooms.

Peter| 3.2.09 @ 5:04AM

Before 'conservative' can be relevant again it first must return to conservative core principles. A necessary first step is to disassociate from the religious right and also to kick every last NeoCon out of the movement. Then start rebuilding. Until both those things happen we're dead in the water.

Basil Plumley| 3.2.09 @ 9:25AM

@Peter

"Before 'conservative' can be relevant again it first must return to conservative core principles. A necessary first step is to disassociate from the religious right and also to kick every last NeoCon out of the movement. Then start rebuilding. Until both those things happen we're dead in the water."

Yeah, and you will be having future CPAC meetings in a phone booth moaning about double-digit representation in Congress and the inability to move any aspects of your "Conservative" agenda.

Maybe you are part of the growing "non-interventionist" movement; a movement that seems to have all the characteristics of Walter Mitty. That post of yours really seems to have very little basis in reality.

Stuart| 3.2.09 @ 3:58PM

Thanks, Mary. And, yes, I'm old enough to know the song. Yeah, Hitchens is great- Britain, not so great anymore.
To read him is to gasp that the U.K. has imbibed every poison American culture and politics has developed in recent decades, plus some of the addle-brained stuff from the E.U.

axbucxdu| 3.3.09 @ 2:58AM

Thank you, Bob.

Bob wrote: Growth under Democrats averaged 4.0193% while growth under Republicans averaged 3.2833%.

This to me is a distinction without a difference, I'm not very big on teams. However, as a registered independent that identifies with conservative/libertarian policies, naturally two of my primary concerns are first the rate at which I can produce income and second at what rate that income, my property, is stolen by strangers.

Bob wrote: Furthermore, I would like you to provide the same type of analysis to the debt created under each administration...

Here's a table from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Bob wrote: ...which is also a result of tax cuts:

This is simply untrue. The normalized debt figures against GDP that you provided show a steady decline in per GDP debt during the Kennedy/Johnson administration. Here's a table & chart showing the top marginal rates from 1913 - 2003. The data is supplied from a progressive web site so it's got to be true:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

You see, taxes can be cut while reducing per GDP debt, it simply requires rates of spending that are slightly slower than the growth of GDP. Both Reagan's and Clinton's budgets further illustrate that both raising spending, in Reagan's case to 22.3% of GDP, and Clinton's cutting spending to 19.6% of GDP, surprise, respectively increased and decreased the debt to GDP fraction. Taxes can be cut. Spending can be decreased. We can benefit. As they say, this isn't rocket science.

If your concern remains revenue shortfalls, I believe the IRS accepts additional contributions from taxpayers. I would but I've already "given" enough at the office.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 8:54AM

axbucxdu, the Kennedy administration cut some taxes (not all) but still did not increase the debt. You suffer from sloppy thinking. You correlate tax cuts with GDP. The point of all of these data is that tax cuts are NOT stimulative and thus do not effect economic growth. There has been a consistent rise in GDP over the long term no matter who was President. This means that it is private enterprise, not government, that is the primary factor in GDP growth.

And by the way, the change in marginal tax rate has little economic meaning since it only affects a small percentage of individuals. Take a look at effective tax rates. By the way, marginal tax rates are offset significantly by income deductions and the fact that most rich people have significant capital gains taxed at a lower rate than middle class tax rates.

And, by the way, Clinton's success had more to do with the dotcom bubble than governing or tax policy. Again, his tax increases had little impact on the GDP because private enterprise is the engine of growth.