-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The controversy surrounding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and its use of porno scanners, pat-downs and feel-ups has split the conservative movement into two camps. It’s the authority-loving cons versus the liberty-loving cons.
I’m firmly in the latter camp, along with Mark Hyman, George Will, Charles Murray, and most grassroots conservative bloggers. And we’ve welcomed into our ranks recently, The American Spectator’s esteemed editor-in-chief, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
This is not surprising, of course. Mr. Tyrrell, after all, is a practicably-minded conservative, not a rigid and inflexible left-wing ideologue.
And so, when he is presented with the facts about the TSA — which are that it is utterly useless and ineffective at finding and stopping terrorists — he does what any reasonable and sober-minded person must do: He admits that we must disband the TSA and start over.
We must develop a screening system that actually works and is effective — and which inconveniences the terrorists rather than the patriotic flying public.
Mr. Tyrrell also is a devotee of liberty who cherishes human freedom and human creativity. Thus he realizes that the porno scanners, the pat-downs, and the feel-ups are an affront to human decency and to human liberty. And so, like most liberty-loving cons he recoils at these sickening acts and demands that we do better.
Unfortunately, not all conservatives agree. Indeed, there are a group of conservatives for whom their blind faith in authority outweighs their love of liberty. I call these conservatives the “authority-loving cons.”
Authority-loving cons see the TSA as they want it to be; liberty-loving cons see the TSA as it really is. Authority-loving cons include Max Boot, Gabriel Schoenfeld, Linda Chavez, Marc Thiessen, and Danielle Pletka — all of whom have argued for the TSA because…
Well, the TSA promises to keep us safe! And what TSA bureaucrats are doing can only help to keep the terrorists at bay! The porno scanners, the pat-downs and the feel-ups all give us “another line of defense,” says Boot.
Liberty-loving cons who complain about the TSA are a bunch of whiners. They need to just suck it up, say authority-loving cons. They need to realize, as does Boot, that “body scanners and pat-downs are…part of the price of safety in this age of Islamist terrorism.”
All of which begs the fundamental questions: Do these so-called security measure actually work? Do they keep us safe? Have they stopped and detected terrorists? Is there a better way?
The answer to these questions are all very clear: No, no, no and yes, respectively. Yet, authority-loving cons persist in their willful self-delusion. “This is about keeping us safer,” insists Pletka. “And if it deters the next attack, I am for it.”
There they go again! Assuming that which is demonstrably false.
Ronald Reagan once said that facts are stubborn things. But not, apparently, to authority-loving cons. For them, dreams — pipe dreams — are stubborn things. They are things (or ideas) that will never die. The TSA, though, needs to die; and Congress needs to start over.
The Reason Foundation’s Robert Poole has proposed a better way: Employ a risk-based screening system that “focus[es] TSA resources on the travelers who should receive the most scrutiny.” And newsflash for the TSA bureaucrats: 80-year-old grandmothers from Cedar Rapids, Iowa aren’t worth your time and attention; 25-year-old Muslim students from Somalia are.
America can and must do better — and so, too, should authority-loving cons.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/30/on-tsa-liberty-loving-cons-vs
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 11.30.10 @ 8:54AM
From the desk of Saul Alinsky:
My dear fellow Americans,
Back when I wrote my Rules for Radicals, I had no idea how things would end up. I assure you, when I wrote the dedication to my book I believed my hero was a purely fictional character, a mistake I assure you I deeply regret. While I am displeased with my ultimate fate, as well as the misuse to my principles made by the current power structure, I believe there are a number of things that the American people can learn from my book when dealing with the current TSA regime.
First of all, you must realize that change cannot come until people are so distraught with the current state of things that they are willing to risk the unknown and even the dangerous. I can scarcely believe that President Obama, one of my most studious acolytes, has allowed himself to be ensnared by this most basic of principles. The current practice of allowing oafish bureaucrats to grope at the genitalia of small children and pregnant women has created such a spectacle that even a naturally conservative nation such as the United States now simmers with revolt. The American people have endured a great deal, but the open molestation of their children is almost certain to be the spark that kindles a forest fire.
What, I ask you, is your most powerful weapon? Why ridicule, of course. And who has opened herself up to ridicule? Ah, that poor incompetent, Janet Napolitano, who in the typical fashion of a petty tyrant attempts to disguise her own incompetence behind swagger, bullying and physical intimidation. Honestly, I do not know why this pathetic woman was not thrown under the bus long ago. If ever there was a target for ridicule it was this pustule of humanity, who in the face of mounting rebellion has no other option save more of the same, a sure way to inflame the masses. Even her physical appearance lends itself to ridicule, with her bloated features and mannish hairstyle. She has managed to combine intellectual vapidity, spiritual nihlism and physical ugliness all into one VERY mockable persona. My dear American people, wake up and give her the treatment she so richly deserves. And my dear President Obama, if you still listen to me at all, get rid of this miserable person before her stink attaches itself to you. I assure you, you want no part of her inevitable fate. Throw her under the bus and save yourself.
I ask you, if you wanted a target to isolate, to freeze and to attack, who better could you ask for than Janet Napolitano and her goon squad of TSA groper-fascists? Aside from Napolitano, consider her army of cretins. Poorly educated, misanthropic, myopic, abusive and callous, they fail to accomplish any public good whatsoever while creating a virtually limitless pool of ill-will for the current administration. Already they are mocked on "Saturday Night Live", a forum which should, under any reasonable circumstances, be reserved for the humiliation of Republicans.
Finally, I urge the American people to make their government live up to its own rules. This is, of course, one of my most basic principals, and one which you should seize upon immediately. If these x-ray machines are so harmless, why should Janet Napolitano refuse to be photographed by them each time she travels? If these "enhanced pat downs" are so beneficial, then how could Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi possibly object to a couple of fingers probing their nether regions to make sure they are not packing a "device"? It is of course ridiculous to expect these individuals to live up to their own rules, so you should press the issue all the more. Once they are exposed as refusing to obey the dictates which they heap upon others their time will be quite limited.
Finally, a word to President Obama. Once more, I urge you to purge this odious imbecile from your rank with all possible haste. Make her humiliation public, and assure the masses that you had no idea what she was up to and that you are just as distraught by her actions as everyone else. If you do this you may yet limit the damage to your Presidency. If you do not, then I hope you have other plans for employment.
Sincerely,
S. Alinsky
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
Curly Smith| 11.30.10 @ 8:57AM
It's Liberty Cons vs. Police State Cons because, as you note, the TSA measures accomplish nothing. Oh sure, they'll stop Grandma from knitting another hideous sweater, but they won't stop a truck bomb at the Mall of America. The 9/11 attack was only so spectacularly successful because the passengers had been lulled into a false sense of security by phony show of security.
Hijackers would never be allowed to take over a plane today because the passengers would stop them. And that's at the root of the debate. It's people protecting themselves versus Big Government protecting you from yourself. Big Government failed on 9/11, Big Government destroyed New Orleans, Big Government led to the current financial mess and anybody who doesn't profit from Big Government recognizes the trend. The Framers said "that which governs least, governs best" to which the Police State Conservatives reply "yeah, well, we're just not big enough to be successful". Big Government Police State Conservatives will never admit that Big Government is the problem.
Mark | 11.30.10 @ 9:09AM
Don't put up with this garbage! Boycott Flying COMPLETELY, until sanity returns! Please join us: http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....1010710392
Yorktown Bob| 11.30.10 @ 10:07AM
Are "Authority-loving cons" even conservative? I've had similar debates over the authority-loving cons deep love and regard for the original Constitution-shredder, Abraham Lincoln. They use the same debate that TSA-loving cons do, that Lincoln had to jail dissidents and close newspapers and suspend habeus corpus etc etc etc. You can't serve two masters that are diametrically opposed: Big Govt and Liberty. Anyone calling them selves a "conservative" who argues for useless Big Government agencies and more intrusiveness and more Constitution-shredding is NO conservative and no friend of America.
mad libertarian guy | 11.30.10 @ 8:12PM
No. They are not conservatives.
They are Authoritarian Statists.
Big government and liberty are not reconcilable in any way shape or form.
George S| 11.30.10 @ 10:29AM
Anyone who accepts the premise that the TSA procedures are necessary because of the nature of the threat, or that if it can deter an attack it is well worth it, is opening the door to these procedures being implemented anywhere. If it is necessary at airports, how can you reasonably argue it isn't necessary at piers and railroad stations? Or shopping malls? Or schools? Or even if you are simply walking down the street...
Freedoms have been lost in the "name of national security" many a time in history. All it takes is the acceptance. After all, if there are no smoking rows in the first few rows of an airplane -- a very reasonable proposition, no? -- that could never mean it will one day encroach to your own home.
JimH| 11.30.10 @ 10:53AM
To the extent the Authoritarians can be considered conservative, a more accurate term might be Tory, at least in the old sense of the word .
Kira is Justice | 11.30.10 @ 11:46AM
There is certainly a better way to deter Islamic extremists from wanting to kill Americans. The first step should be to stop provoking them by giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in foreign aid to Muslim dictators, stop selling billions of dollars worth of weapons every year to oppressive Middle Eastern nations, and stop occupying Muslim lands. As the land of the free, we should be ashamed of our history of support for dictators in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, we should be disgusted by the amount of taxpayer money going to dictators in Egypt and Jordan. If we sincerely want to "spread democracy" to the Middle East, we first need to stop supporting dictatorship in the region.
http://kiraisjustice.wordpress.....-no-crime/
matthew s harrison| 11.30.10 @ 11:53AM
As was evidenced in the vote to ban earmarks today, there are those on "our side" who are in lockstep with those who think we out here in flyover territory-the "unwashed" as the brilliant PhD Katie Couric calls us, are unable to understand the TRUTH. Those who are on "our side" of the aisle who support this bullshit are really not on our side. They are RINOs at best, but are more likely big establishment pukes who will back the establishment over the unwashed masses on every issue as their daily course of business.
It is disturbing indeed, when the so called "brilliant" pundits and reporters who claim a conservative moniker, yet support the subjugation of the masses through tactics like this, where We The People are degraded and defiled into submission.
This tactic is nothing, and I mean nothing more than a way to beat us into submission, so that further rape of our culture, our rights, and our freedom can be done, while we sit idly by and drink the kool-aid they peddle about our safety and security.
Any conservative that buys anything that this administration is selling is not only an idiot, but is no conservative. Rather they are sheep who are leading the herd to the slaughterhouse.
The activities undertaken by the WH that are follow-ons to this current regime of denigration foisted on old ladies and 9 year olds, will be more egregiously destructive to our civil rights, and will further show the true intent.
I only hope the "conservatives" who see this stuff as necessary now, will finally get it before the boxcars are being loaded with all of us who would disagree with the lord and emperor obama.
mad libertarian guy | 11.30.10 @ 8:15PM
Any "conservative" who bought in to anything the last administration sold as part of national security mission is an idiot too.
The facts do not change just because the guy in the WH is different.