-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Canadian PM: Keystone XL Pipeline “Absolutely Needs To Go Ahead.”
May 16, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Has Obama Done Sufficient Damage Control With The IRS?
May 15, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last night I had the pleasure of attending the The American Spectator’s 45th anniversary dinner in Washington, D.C.
During cocktails, the first face I recognized was that of Jeff Lord and I introduced myself. As it turned out, we were assigned the same table and sat next to each other during the dinner. His presence made for an enjoyable evening.
Jeff told me he had a written a rebuttal to my election post-mortem “We’re Not in 1980 Anymore”. I confessed that I had not read his piece. He kindly e-mailed the link which awaited when I returned home late this afternoon noting we had four years to have this discussion. Here is part of what he wrote:
There is abroad in the land — and even here in the pages of The American Spectator with my colleague Aaron Goldstein — the notion that “it’s not 1980 anymore.” Ironically, this is only the 2012 version of the argument that was made against Reagan himself in 1980. It wasn’t 1920 anymore, went the reasoning. Reagan was just an old fashioned man out-of-step with the space-age 1980s.
Which is the political equivalent of saying that because Newton died in 1727 and it is now 285 years later - the law of gravity Newton discovered is no longer relevant. He’s just another irrelevant dead white guy. You know how it goes. “It’s not 1727 anymore.”
Well, I’m glad Jeff brought up Newton because I don’t think he appreciates the gravity of the situation.
It could also be said that Jeff’s argument is a classic case of apples and oranges.
Jeff argues that the conservative principles of 1980 “were also true in 1780 and 1880 and they will be true in 2080. He goes on to argue, “They are to the world of politics and government what Newton’s law of gravity is to the physical world.” Yet politics and government and indeed political science cannot be construed as a science. The laws of physics (of which gravity is a part) are immutable. The laws of politics, government and political science are anything but immutable. There is no equivalent of E=MC2 in political science.
The truth of the matter is that the notion of “all men being created equal” was a pretty radical concept in the 1780s. Before that there were kings and divine rights. It took centuries for the concept of equality to be accepted let alone articulated without fear of imprisonment or death. But even when it was articulated some people were created more equal than others during that time. Over time this principle has been extended to women as well as to racial and religious minorities in this country.
With that said, I do believe that there will one day again be a Republican in the White House and a conservative Republican at that. But while we can learn from 1980 we cannot live in 1980. A conservative, like any other species, has two choices. Adapt or die. That is the gravity of the situation.
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/11/16/does-jeff-lord-appreciate-the
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
RJ| 11.16.12 @ 1:24AM
I hope that you and Jeff are both right. Conservative principles are indeed still true, but the people are different. It took exceptional people to make America exceptional. Are we still a nation of exceptional people? Dependency is gaining over self-reliance. Without personal independence and responsible behavior, a free society cannot last.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.16.12 @ 5:49AM
You can be exceptionally good at receiving government benefits.
Teflon93 | 11.16.12 @ 6:46AM
Another Northeastern Republican completely misses the point of conservatism.
Like gravity, conservative principles are not subject to erosion over time. Self-reliance, thrift, and hard work ALWAYS work. It makes no difference whether this advice was recommended by Poor Richard or Mitt Romney. It happens to be true.
Dependence, wastefulness, and indolence will destroy a society just as quickly as an individual.
You Republicans who would trade the truth for the next election only destroy yourselves. Why do you think nobody in America honestly believes you'll be fiscally responsible anymore? You pissed that away under Bush and "The Architect".
Sean| 11.16.12 @ 7:07AM
Inform me when the Republicans run a conservative. If the Republicans continue to run moderate and liberals and lose how can you blame conservatism? Where was Mitt Romney attacking affirmative action? Where was Mitt Romney defending life? Where was Mitt Romney strongly going after illegal immigration? Where was Mitt Romney defending the Constitution? You can't run the father of Obama Care and then claim conservatism lost.
Mike G| 11.16.12 @ 8:24AM
Sean, you hit that nail right on the head!
Bob Grant| 11.16.12 @ 9:30AM
"Where was Mitt Romney strongly going after illegal immigration?"...
Where were YOU the last year and a half??????
Mitt Romney's immigration stance was anything but soft.
Come on, you're simply giving us Conservative Purist rantings.
And, by the way, if you declined to vote last week because Romney didn't pass your litmus test, THANKS FOR QUICKENING THE DEMISE OF OUR COUNTRY.
Thanks alot Pal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your soon-to-be suffering friends, family, and community will be "grateful" for your "principles".
Sean| 11.16.12 @ 10:15AM
Romney wasn't going to overturn obamas amnesty and supported self deportation. That is.t tough on illegals.
Bob Grant| 11.16.12 @ 10:43AM
Be honest, Mr. Conservative.
Did you or didn't you vote for Romney?
Sean| 11.16.12 @ 2:48PM
Of course I didn't vote for the liberal. Republicans were warned that millions would not vote for him. My family my friends will no longer vote for democrat lite.
Bob Grant| 11.16.12 @ 3:04PM
You can speculate on what a President Romney would or would not have done (that's a gutless way out IMHO), but you DID know what obama has done the past four years and what he will do!!!
And so YOU will be just as responsible for the destruction of our country as the ObamaPhonePeople!
Sean| 11.16.12 @ 6:29PM
How do you think those people got their phones? Republicans. When you control the House you can cut that stuff out, but your gutless Republicans will not block spending.
Bob Grant| 11.16.12 @ 9:38AM
AAAnnnd,
If you DIDN'T vote for Romney, I will hold you PERSONALLY for giving us the OBAMA SUPREME COURT, which is now all but a certainty.
Our country will be in flames and we will have nothing but YOU will be secure in the fact that your principles remain in tact.
After all, it's all about your "principles", isn't it??
If you voted for Romney, disregard the rant. My apologies.
Teflon93 | 11.16.12 @ 12:34PM
And whom do you blame for the GOP running yet another moderate/liberal despite their losing track record?
Bob Grant| 11.16.12 @ 12:58PM
The bottom lime, sir, is Romney provided enough of a clear alternative to Obama Statism for independents, conservatives, and libertarians.
My focus of blame is NOT on ObamaPhonePeople, Union thugs, or lifetime government workers. No, my blame is directed towards those who disagreed with obama but chose to sit out the election because of the misguided belief the there was no difference between the two, AND middle-class African Americans whos livelihood depend on a strong, vibrant, growing economy, but who voted strictly on the basis of skin color - to those people, I hope they feel it was worth it now that many of them will be relegated BACK to the lower class.
Those two groups disappoint me the most.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.12 @ 3:26PM
I voted for Santorum, then Romney. I thought about that Supreme Court ALL the time.
In other news, I'm now Linked-In to CALIRE BERLINSKI. She Asked ME! I am smitten.
I expect to fight Liberal Vermin for the rest of my life. I expect to win very few times. But we keep on hitting and fighting because that is what men do.
Obama is an atrocity, a combination of Jack in Wi. on FP and Purp on domestic policy. My Black Lab 'Bama would have been a better choice, as she looks just as Black in skin tone, and has a better personality and is more intelligent in communication. She also comes to heel when a Conservative speaks better.
astorian| 11.16.12 @ 7:20AM
Conservative principles may be timeless, but it doesn't follow that the issues voters care about are unchanging.
EVERY successful political movement, ironically, sows the seeds of its own demise. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was immensely popular and helped restore prosperity to America. But once Americans were prosperous again, many of them voted for Eisenhower!
New York City voters turned to tough guy Rudy Giuliani when they were frightened by soaring crime rates. But once Rudy successfully brought down crime rates, New Yorkers could safely vote for liberals again.
Ronald Reagan was a great man who accomplished great things, including lowering taxes and winning the Cold War. Problem (and it's a GOOD problem, in most respects!) is, now that we no longer have a dangerous military rival and now that most people DON'T have a horrendous tax load to shoulder... a campaign platform of cutting taxes and boosting military strength just doesn't have the appeal it did in 1980.
The Soviet Union is gone and taxes aren't exorbitant for most people. I'm HAPPY about that. But that means the Republicans CAN'T keep running on 1980's platform.
Dai Alanye | 11.16.12 @ 8:41AM
Correction: FDR's New Deal did NOT restore prosperity to America.The New Deal extended a depression into The Great Depression, just as Obama's policies are extending a recession years beyond its natural life.
Further, the Soviet Union might be gone but Islamic terrorism is here to stay until dealt with realistically by some future president. And taxes ARE exorbitant today, especially the tax of inflation.
handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 11:50AM
Dai, you are one of the few that gets the debacle that was FDR.
You are succinct and accurate. Thank you.
handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 12:16PM
Astorian, as Dai said FDR did NOT restore prosperity to America. You were correct though that the New Deal was immensely popular. People are/were stupid and cheered the slide into socialism and welfare state.
No longer have a dangerous military rival? Only if the fact that we give the Muslim states who hate us the means by which to kill us makes them somehow less a threat....NOT!
A campaign of cutting taxes and boosting military strength may not have had appeal, but it is necessary. Bengazhi and all BO's policies are more than echos of Carter admin failure-they are far worse and we are in a worse situation domestically and abroad than when Reagan took office.
Government needs to be limited, spending on anything but defense needs to be limited. Checks and balances need to be restored. the Pres has more power than the Constitution allows. Gridlock is our friend.
NH Conservative| 11.16.12 @ 7:29AM
When "conservatives" talk of adapting they usually mean accommodating liberal principles. When liberals speak of adapting, they usually mean making conservatives give up theirs. Liberals never retreat when they suffer a loss. "Conservatives" always do or blame other conservatives.
Dai Alanye | 11.16.12 @ 8:47AM
NH is conflating conservatives with RINOs. The difference, of course, is that RINOs simply want our side to win with the least amount of effort. Conservatives want our principles to win.
But I'll add this: If some compromise on detail is necessary to obtain a greater advantage there's no sin in making it. I'll always surrender ground if by so doing I can entrap the enemy and win the greater battle. The danger lies in compromising principles... And in recognizing the difference between a principle and a detail.
Mick Lee| 11.16.12 @ 8:57AM
So we have a number of well-meaning, honorable conservatives getting the vapors about "adapting" and "appealing to Latinos, 'Nones', Single Women, on and on." But in concrete terms, what would "adapting" look like? What would it mean? Specifically, what should we do and how?
It should be remembered that since the very foundation of the Republican Party hosts of honorable (and not so honorable) folk have advised Republicans to adapt, moderate, soft-pedal and throw in the towel--and they haven't had a good track record. We lowly foot-soldiers require greater assurances for the proffered wisdom of those who would advise and lead us than have been presented up to now.
Simon Templar| 11.16.12 @ 10:04AM
Adapting means bowing down to the Left wing and progressives as arbiters of what is politically correct and cultural defined and sanctioned. It means pandering to and giving these groups what they want and accepting the narratives that these groups have been fed by the Left about themselves, conservatives, and liberalism. Adapting means literally giving the Left carte blanche authority to define who the next aggrieved group is and the next victim and what they are entitled to receive from the rest of us. Adaption means letting them define the shape of our culture, the form of our institutions, our cultural values, and what is correct thinking and what is not. It basically means conservatives should shut up and be silenced when it comes to anything social, cultural, or moral that is not defined by the Left. That extends into national sovereignty, patriotism, and illegal invasions or anything else that the Left deems. Adapt and shut up.
darcy| 11.16.12 @ 3:12PM
Here's the scary thing, Simon. All this bowing and adapting is setting the stage for the "great" capitulation to come: the removal of our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, even now being engineered -- with this administration's guidance -- by the U.N. and at the behest of the 57-member OIC.
That's what the real story of Benghazi is all about, in addition to shedding the light on the so-called Arab Spring, al-Qaeda on the run and all that rot. The filmmaker is now in jail, not for a probationary violation, but for satirizing Islam, which supposedly set off violence in Egypt and Libya. This is the very tool designed by the OIC in its Cairo Declaration to use against the West, esp. in the U.S.: an exercise of free speech that OSTENSIBLY leads to violence and mayhem, and charges against the "culprit" being adjudicated in a U.S. court, and said culprit found guilty, a case making it all the way to the USSC, and they -- being the predominantly lefty tools that they are -- once and for all denying to the American people the right to speak out critically regarding Islam.
That's the end game. Game, set, and match. The adaptors will not even raise an eyebrow; they are men without principle. They stick their bony fingers in the wind and bow accordingly.
Simon Templar| 11.16.12 @ 9:49AM
"A conservative, like any other species, has two choices. Adapt or die."
Interesting.
Like any other species..other than a liberal or Leftwinger, you mean? They see to have more than these...they certainly do not have any intentions of dying or "adapting." Forward is their call to political arms.
Just two choices? Conservatives get two choices, extinction or assimilation or as you put it, adaptation. We know what you mean by that, so do not bother back pedaling later.
No, it is you who do not understand...
Lose the culture and you lose everything..someday you will understand this, the hard way...
Religious and Economic Freedom, Morality and Truth, Individualism, and Liberty are not negotiable.
Teflon93 | 11.16.12 @ 12:35PM
Sharks seem to be doing just fine.
Simon Templar| 11.16.12 @ 10:07AM
By the way, you are very predictable. So much so, I could write your columns before you do. I saw this coming.
Adapt this!
handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 12:21PM
Adapting to what the plurality wants, a free ride and scapegoating the other will not restore this country. I don't have the answer, but I know that trying to hide the truth or adapt to stupidity or become the opposition won't solve the problem. It is not the 80's platform we need. That much is true. It is somehow, reestablishing the truths that are self evident. It is back to the start of this country, to the Dec of Ind and the Constitution which is its practical application, back to when truth won out over self interest and tyranny. It is the same battle now as it was before the revolution. There will always be flaws and struggles, but even some socialists recognize that social equality comes most where the most freedom exists first. Liberty and equal rights first. Does not guarantee equal outcomes, equal wealth, equal intelligence, but it does guarantee the greatest chance for the most social equality. All else will follow.
Restore limited government, checks and balances. Issues are only whose ox is getting gored today.
As Reagan said, when the government tries to solve a problem, that is the problem. Also, he said, the nearest thing to immortality is a government program.
All our issues and our problems have come because the government has overreached and is too big to be efficient or serve its intended limited purpose. Back to the principles of the Founding of this country. That should be the platform.
L.E. Powers| 11.16.12 @ 12:30PM
Are our conservative principles based in Natural Law? Are we not endowed with our rights from our Creator? Nature has been pretty unchanging over the millennia. Since these physical part of natural law has proven unchanging, then perhaps their spiritual counterparts are also unchanging.
Aaron, the concept that all men are created equal might have been radical in the 1760's, but it was not unheard of. Going all the way back to Moses, this has been the Judeo-Christian concept. We have accepted that to keep the peace and ensure equality we need some political organization, but that doesn't change the fundamental principle of equality and the dignity of all men.
It is true that things are always changing, but it does not mean that principles and laws are changing. As conservatives, we need to get out and really think about the current crop of problems, come up with creative solutions that do not violate our principles, and then learn how to communicate the solution in terms that show respect for those whom we are trying to persuade, and vigorously fight those who would distract us from our purpose. The great people who have started and sustained movements in modern times--Reagan, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, King-- stood on a core principle and learned how to communicate their uncompromising message in a way the masses understood and could support.
Teflon93 | 11.16.12 @ 12:36PM
The truest principle being, "The trouble with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." Lady Thatcher
Oldefarte| 11.16.12 @ 2:07PM
I'm mostly in favor of Bob Grant's POV above in that those conservatives so rigid as to avoid voting for Romney/Republicans out of spite and thus allowing/providing Obama's re-election are seriously STUPID. The cliches of BRUNING DOWN THE BARN TO GET RID OF RATS etc are appropriate in their cases. 11/4/08 and 11/6/12 represented OPPORTUNITY vs. TYRANNY, and the American people [including these rigid conservatives in addition to the typically dumbarsed Democrats] chose the latter. Now we will all pay the price for their stupidity of choice. Conservatives who say that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats rigidly ignore the OPPORTUNITY factor involved. With Republicans of a moderate or semi-conservative bent, there is always the possibility of upgrading [ie to a tea party candidate with rock-solid principles], but with Democrats, ther is not. Additionally, the destructive harm done over elected terms from Democrats usually represent a huge defecit-hole from which to futuristically crawl out from under, if at all possible. This country has been governed historically by RINOs that politically negotiated badly with Democrats but nonetheless did provide FINGERS IN THE DAM from which opportunities could futuristically be made to perform damage repair of said dam......
Oldefarte| 11.16.12 @ 2:07PM
These two elections represented a non-typical political event in that a group of domestic terrorists have succeeded in capturing [and now encasing in political concrete] their communistic/socialistic/Marxist etc dogmas; and there is nor will ther futuristically ever be an opportunity to reverse/repair same. This is what the strict-conservatives ["burn down the barn"] fail to comprehend. There is no tomorrow after 11/6/12; and the beginning of the end is approaching now [see the following as an example]:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin...../id/464385
heball| 11.16.12 @ 2:46PM
Re: Lord/Reagan - 1980.......
Dear Aaron:
The words on the Statue of Liberty are forever enduring; if I must adapt my conservative principles to "go along to get along'" then I say:
Give me liberty or give me death.