Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Losing Specter
I was otherwise engaged yesterday afternoon when news of the Specter defection broke, but have taken in some number of blogger and talking-head reactions since (see Memeorandum for a huge blog round-up). Lest anybody was wondering, my opinions are as follows:
This is very bad news for Republicans and conservatives. Why? Because it will probably lead to the enactment of laws and entitlements that will become all but impossible to repeal no matter how robust the ultimate reaction against them (if there is such a reaction).
The lust for ideological purity within the Republican party is a fool's errand. Neither conservatives nor -- thank the Lord, Allah, and Yahweh -- liberals have the votes to enact every aspect of their agenda except under very rare circumstances. Those circumstances only arise in times of great national crisis or when an ideological candidate is able to manufacture broad appeal by dint of his personality. Ronald Reagan was such a conservative, and Barack Obama is such a liberal. Sad to say, there is no obvious Ronald Reagan in the Republican party today who can lead it back. Therefore, conservatives will only be able to regain some measure of power by making common cause with moderates.
On the right, the big divide between conservatives and moderates is on "social" issues, and the right losing support for its purest positions. Whatever conservatives may feel, strident opposition to gay marriage will make it impossible for conservatives to win votes from more than a small fraction of educated professionals, no matter how fervently such people respect "tea party" principles of low taxes, small government, and individual achievement. Too many of us have gay friends, family, and employees not to want them to be happy in marriage. Even I, who travel in conservative circles and absolute defend the right of Miss California and others to hold their opinions, am offended by a lot of the conservative rhetoric against gays. Republicans, who claim to be pro-family, should loudly decide that support for gay marriage is pro-family and pro-stability. Which, by the way, it is. Similarly, the pure position on abortion will never win the day no matter how fervently the pro-life activists press their message. Conservatives should push for a program to make abortion as rare as possible, but that would require them to support widespread contraception which offends too many in their ranks.
Republicans, and conservatives, need to find a way to appeal to ethnic minorities. Even in the age of Obama it can be done, but only by reshaping the debate over immigration. Republicans have been the party of American nativists since they absorbed the "Know Nothings" just before the Civil War, and everybody knows that (without necessarily knowing the history). That legacy means that even well-intentioned complaints about "border security" sound like nativism to ethnic minorities. Conservatives need to understand that. Instead, conservatives should work diligently to attract ethnic minorities by emphasizing the thing that immigrants care about the most: Opportunity.
Pushing Arlen Specter out the door, giving Barack Obama a filibuster-proof Senate, and hoping for the next Ronald Reagan is not a strategy for anything other than an America that most conservatives would hate to see transpire.
MORE: This is an interesting look [link fixed!] at the reality vs. the perception of conservative ascendancy.
39 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Apr 29, 08:34:00 AM:
The Republicans have ceased to be a national party. About being a Democrat in his youth, Reagan said "I didn't leave the Democrats ... they left me." I can say the same about the Republicans.
Obama's natural constituency are those who get government checks ... he'll find ways to make this group bigger, at the expense of the rest of us. This group will have some surprising members ... a lot of business interests will be co-opted by Obama. GE's Jeff Immelt won't be the last CEO to figure out that it's Obama's world, we just live in it.
The Air Force One incident -- comical as it was-- was also revealing. "Do as I say, not as I do." DC bureaucrats ordering local authorities to follow bone-headed instructions, or else. There's an entire power structure in DC -- bureaucrats, Nancy Pelosi, Obama -- who live in a bubble world. Inconvenient principles of reason and science ... and even common sense ... need not apply.
They now believe that they own everything. The rest of us are just tenants at sufferance.
Link, over
By 
Anthony, at
Wed Apr 29, 08:54:00 AM:
Two thoughts:
First, Specter as much walked out as he was pushed out. He wasn't a fiscal, social, or judicial conservative. Even in a "big tent" party, he just didn't fit anymore. He conversion to Democrat is more of a coming-home. Remember that's where he started, switching to Republican in 1965 after losing a local Democratic primary. And I question how hard he was pushed: the party backed him in 2004 for reelection (against Twomey. IIRC) and had promised to back him again, this year. He was allowed to retain chairmanship of the Judiciary committee even after breaking with the Republicans on several key issues. And on Porkulus, he was one of only three Rs to vote for it -- even liberal Republicans in the House didn't do that. It wasn't that the party had gone too far to the Right for him, it's that he himself had drifted Left.
On the other hand, you're very right about the dangers of a "purity crusade" turning the Republicans into a regional rump party. I've been trying to warn "true conservative" friends about this, but too many consider any deviation to be a mark of the dread RINO. The party faces the same danger the Democrats did after 2002 and especially 2004. They recovered; I hope we can.
Last thing, regarding gay marriage: I think the great mistake of the anti- groups is pursuing or seeming to be pursuing a blanket national decision, such as through a constitutional amendment. A wiser approach I think would be to emphasize federalism and our desire for each state to decide for themselves. The quest to impose uniformity produces reaction, just as, say, the Left's quest to impose nationwide abortion-on-demand via the courts does.
(For the record, I'd vote to allow gay marriage, but I do think it should be a matter of social policy decided by the people of each state.)
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 08:59:00 AM:
The OP (original post) is about pure pragmatism. It is about "gaining and keeping Power". And it attacks "principle" for the sake of pragmatism.
First off, I would like to address the "reaching out to minorities" issue.
Can't be done.
Society is NOT about a group of individuals. Never has been. Culture defines politics and Culture is defined by race and religion! Can any society be divorced from race? And yet so-called "conservatives" think they can. This is stupid. The limited government type is produced by ONLY certain racial types, Anglo-Saxons for one. You can't uphold the institutions and ideas of America without Anglo-Saxons. Reaching out to minorities is about watering down one's own values and systems.
You can't mix oil and water!
The whole 1965 Immigration Act was about watering down the WASP culture by minoritizing the dominant race. Duh...
What don't you get? It is being done on purpose to marginalize the dominant European cultural type. That is by purpose. If Europeans have to mix with minorities, then Europeans will have to minoritize.
You can't make a bed of "one size fits all". Violence occurs. Minorities are NOT going to pick up European values, nor WASP values. Ain't going to happen.
In order to suggest something politically, one must have Philosophical training. Philosophy deals with the Natural Law. There is no common cause between races. If there is, only for a very short time. Common sense dictates that the minorities are not going to make common cause with the Majority dominant race. Never will happen.
Culture is one part Racially defined. How can one be a "conservative" and deny that is beyond me. Only progressives think like that. And that is why the Progressive party, the Democrat party, is a mishmash of minorities in opposition to the Republican party----Duh.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:12:00 AM:
It seems to me that the current 'plan' of many Republicans is to wait, hope that Obama's plans crash and burn, and benefit from the backlash. There are two problems with that 'plan': the immediate damage caused by failed national policies and the long term damage from the ratchet effect, which you highlight in your first point.
Best wishes,
Jim
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:13:00 AM:
What you and Anthony of Los A. are proposing is the "Democraticization" of the Republican party.
What you all want to do with the Gay Agenda is rewrite Christian protocol, teaching, and witness to fit a progressive model!
"Purity" what you decry is an essential ingredient to Truth. Christianity is stridently opposed to anything homosexual. Our Loyalty is not to party politics, not to pragmatism of winning affection or power----Our Loyalty is to God Almighty.
And this is the core of this Rodney King approach to gay marriage. Gay marriage is a farce. It is straight out-an-out evil.
God punishes evil. Even pagan nations such as Rome and the Greek republics knew that they had to have the blessings of God in order to succeed. Even the pagan nations of antiquity followed the moral line of their gods in order to bring about success.
Christians can NOT have a love of God and then support gay marriage---it is an oxymoron. Christians have a duty and a loyalty to follow God and now we are to jettison our moral teaching for some political Rodney King "Why can't we all get along" flavor of the day.
The recommendations of the OP are nothing but utilitarianism, of a cloaked freemasonry teaching of tolerance and diversity.
Christianity is not about tolerance. If the Republican party is intolerant, then it is Christian and will be marginalized.
The World has always rejected Truth, and will reject Christianity. The Republican party which has majority Christians in it is expressing Christian culture, not Masonic, not socialist wants.
It is forbidden a long time ago that the sons of light will mingle with the sons of darkness. In Genesis, God put ENMITY between the two that they two may never coalesce. You can't mingle oil and water, you can't mingle good with evil.
And this OP seeks to make the Republican party into the Democratic party. No.
If the Republican party wants power, it has to kick out all the traditionalist Christians.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:23:00 AM:
I agree with Anthony (Los Angeles). I think Specter walked. Specter is all about himself and he saw an opportunity. If he was pushed, why now? Why not a year or two ago? And why weren't Snowe and Collins pushed with him?
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:26:00 AM:
TH:
You've mellowed a bit. I tried to tell you some of these things during the most strident of the Hannity/Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh days, but you dismissed my arguments. Ironically, I've become a bit more conservative, but the social conservatives have kept me out of the GOP (on the issues that you cite, plus stem-cell research and a few others). The Republicans need to reach out more and, yes, become more tolerant. (To many in the center, it may be that Obama isn't all that great or the answer, but to the educated, suburban people you cite, he's better than any alternative the Republicans have to offer at the moment).
Let's not get too weepy about Specter, per se. He's an opportunist, told Mel Martinez and other Republicans that this was purely about getting reelected, and he likes the limelight, so he'll seize this choice as an opportunity to be a power broker within the Senate because the Dems will need him to get to the filibuster-proof majority. Come to think of it, he could be a better brake on some of the more outlandish bills that result from the Democrats' having too much power than he would have in the opposition, a political Trojan Horse, as it were.
Anthony, I don't know if I have the depth, competence or time to respond to your posts, but why, given your point of view, have you chosen Los Angeles of all cities as a place to live?
The Centrist
By Dan Kauffman, at
Wed Apr 29, 09:33:00 AM:
All this seems in paradox with the Rasmussen polls on the generic Democrat/Republican ballot, which has been trending in favor of the Republican Party the entire time of this administration and this week we have 3 points on them.
Spector will be as he has been vote as he has voted, unless he should decide to vote differently than he would have before to curry favor with the Democratic Party leadership and of course that will gain their trust?
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:38:00 AM:
I totally agree with Tigerhawk's comment: "This is very bad news for Republicans and conservatives. Why? Because it will probably lead to the enactment of laws and entitlements that will become all but impossible to repeal no matter how robust the ultimate reaction against them (if there is such a reaction)."
America is in a spiral devolution towards entropy. Just like a cancer is impossible to remove after awhile. Father S. J. Hardon back in the seventies wrote a paper that America is a communist country. It is the Lennist principle of "The long march thru the institutions". This proves Antonio Gramsci's principle of "Culture defines politics". The Left has control over the universities, colleges, and schools. They are indoctrinating children, teenagers, and young adults into Leftism, pure and simple. That the Left is in power is because they grabbed the institutions of learning.
This is your "purity".
You can't have Leftists in education but sadly America has disregarded Wisdom. What does Wisdom teach?
"Bad company destroys good morals".
Bad teachers, or leftist teachers, are putting out there a leftist voting people. You've allowed people teach in schools that are against Christianity and European culture. You let the Frankfurt School educate and direct the educational policy in this country. America is Marxist.
Political correctness is Marxist morality. It is taught everywhere. 90% of Americans hold political correctness. America is Marxist. One can't mix Marxism with traditional Christianity. It will only get worse. The Republican party will continue to be marginalized and the Democrats will step up with total control. It is inevitable. We, traditional Christians, are met again the instances that the Vendee Catholics faced in the aftermath of the French Revolution and in 1930's Spain, what the White Russians faced with the Masonic Bolshevism in Russia.
Segregation or Civil war are the only alternatives. Either European Christians will segregate themselves or civil war has to break out, or the take of this OP assimilation to the Marxist Multicultural society now being engineered in this country.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Apr 29, 09:38:00 AM:
To hell with it. Move to Asia.
Investment guru Jim Rogers, who, in 2007, moved to Singapore (my second home for the past 20+ years): "Well, again, throughout history, the center of the world has shifted to where the capital is, where the assets are. You don't see any period in history where things are shifting to the debtors, and America's the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Unless something's different this time, unless the world's changed very very dramatically, the center of the influence, the center of power, the center of the earth, the center of the globe, is going to be shifting towards Asia, because that's where all the money is. Have you ever heard of anybody saying, 'Let's go to where all of the debtors are'? It just doesn't happen that way."
Link:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1894294,00.html?iid=perma_share
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:42:00 AM:
Re: Appeal to ethnic minorities.
My father left the Democratic Party in part because of their support for Jim Crow laws in the south. The Democratic Party was the racist party, and he would have none of that. The Democrats got the African-American vote by promising to give them power and benifits based on their skin color, and it worked. Just because it worked doesn't make it right.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:43:00 AM:
Interesting post. Interesting comments.
By Mrs. Davis, at
Wed Apr 29, 10:00:00 AM:
Specter jumped because he was going to lose the primary. He was going to lose the primary not because of his votes on any social issues but because of his vote on the stimulus bill. Specter believes in nothing except the importance of winning the next election.
The perspective of this post is that conservatives have to change something about themselves to win. It is a very self-loathing position. When the leftists lose they do not fret about how they need to become more conservative, they plot to regain power to implement their program. And they never give anything back. Conservatives are always ready to concede that whatever gains the leftists make are permanent and to only resist more leftism. This is a fools errand that leads to leadership like the Bushes. And it demoralizes the core of conservatives as the Bushes did.
The real problem is that there is no Ronald Reagan to extol the virtues of capitalism and republican government. As Rick Santorum pointed out this morning, that is largely a result of conservatives having abandoned the conflict for cultural institutions such as the media, education and entertainment, all of which are dominated by leftists. Note that the most, if not only, successful proselytizer for conservatism in the last 100 years was from Hollywood. And the next competitor, Bill Buckley, was from the media.
Until conservatives are more successful in promoting their philosophy in the competition for control of cultural institutions, they will face the choice of being an occasional palliative for moderates suffering a leftist hangover, or leftist-lites standing athwart history shouting "Slower."
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 10:07:00 AM:
I think your second point is wrong-headed. What "lust for ideological purity" drove Specter away? That argument is a strawman.
Specter left because he was going to lose a Pennsylvania primary, pure and simple. It had nothing to do with any sort of "lust for ideological purity", whatever that is supposed to mean. If you think GOP voters in Pennsylvania should have learned to swallow hard in order to retain a Senate seat (when that suits the Senators interests), then make that argument. It's a solid utilitarian argument.
Alternatively, if you are arguing that there are some "new politics" out there that would capture Pa. GOP voters and still retain Specter, then I think the whole party would like to hear those views. It's certainly incumbnet on Pat Toomey to do that in Pennsylvania now, or else he is merely a foolish man.
But let's not turn the discussion on it's head and argue fallaciously; that doesn't help anyone!
By CardEEHokie, at
Wed Apr 29, 10:14:00 AM:
Couple of thoughts from a long time reader:
You’re absolutely correct, this is very bad news for republicans and conservatives, since we will NEVER be able to overturn laws and entitlements that this shift will enable. This has always been the Achilles heal of conservatism, as we are in a “one way walk” with the “progressives”.
With all due respect to your opinion on Arlen Specter, he was not a conservative in any measure of the word. He was not forced out in any way other than he was going to lose his primary bid to a more conservative challenger. Are you suggesting that we can never replace candidates in office with new candidates whose goals are more in line with the conservative philosophy? Conservatives only mistake with Specter was allowing him to represent them in the first place.
Conservatives will never find a way to appeal to ethnic minorities without compromising the foundations of conservatism. For the most part, these minority groups are about increasing their opportunity at the expense of the opportunities of other groups using preferential treatment as an enabler. Conservatism is about creating opportunities for everyone equally, not presorting the opportunities based on ethnicity. What you are advocating is for the conservatives to trade opportunity for votes as the liberals have done for the last century. I’m sorry, but if you do that, you’re going to create a party that is simply in a biding contest with the democrats for who can give minorities the most by taking away from the ever shrinking ethnic majority.
Finally, gay marriage is hardly the huge divider you make it out to be. The majority of republicans AND democrats are not in favor of gay marriage, so while this may be a personal peeve of yours, it is hardly an electoral loser.
There is a lot of room to compromise at the fringe of our beliefs, but you are asking conservatives to compromise their core. There is a point where trying to add a few more people to the republican party will cause more people to leave than were brought in.
By Anthony, at
Wed Apr 29, 10:14:00 AM:
Anthony, I don't know if I have the depth, competence or time to respond to your posts, but why, given your point of view, have you chosen Los Angeles of all cities as a place to live?I'm a native Californian and I still like the place? I prefer northern California, but this is where the work is.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 10:38:00 AM:
It seems that the only way to become a "good, tolerant" republican, one must become more of a democrat.
Specter's jump is bad in the respect that it takes away the filibuster, but the democrats were manouvering to bypass that anyway with "reconciliation". His jump was for no more than power. He wanted to remain in the senate and this was the best way he could see to fulfill his lust for power. Would he have been elected in 2004 if he had run as a democrat?
How does one reach out to minorities to have them move away from the democrats?
The democrats "offer" them large government solutions - government pays for everything, the government eliminates discrimination through affirmative action, the government pays for food, housing, higher education, health care - not that the minorities have flourished under these programs - they haven't. But they still vote in large percentages for democrats.
How does the message of smaller government, individual responsibility, and fiscal responsibility counter the democrat "offer"?
The democrats are upping the ante by having the government take over even more of private enterprise and they are increasing the size of government - with the whole hearted approval of minorities.
When you turn over responsibility for you health, happiness, liberty and freedom to the government - what will it take to entice you to take those back to yourself and shed the "protective" stifling umbrella of huge government?
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 10:43:00 AM:
"The virtues of capitalism"
I didn't think that capitalism had any virtue! I would think capitalism is essentially against virtue.
The first critique of capitalism comes from Homer, believe it or not. Homer said, "Phonecians are fine sailors but are all rogues". The Phonecians were the capitalists of the early Mediterranian Sea which brought capitalism to the European shores. Capitalism was foreign to the Europeans. As can be inferred by Homer, the Phonecians were without virtue and so are called "rogues" because capitalism turns out rogues.
Socrates continues this critique. He said, "Where money is prized, virtue is despised." Virtue and capitalism do not go together.
Montesquieu, the favorite intellectual of the FFofA, advocated capitalism because it will eventually destroy religion. Capitalism is materialism and is essentially anti-religious because of its materialism. It competes against religion for the soul of man.
Throughout history true conservatives have been against capitalism and have barely tolerated it. "Virtues of capitalism" bah humbug.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Wed Apr 29, 11:03:00 AM:
"I didn't think that capitalism had any virtue! I would think capitalism is essentially against virtue"
Capitalism IMO is mankind's first best attempt at a paradigm other than plunder and pillage, At it's best it is the mutually agreed upon exchange of goods and services.
Socialism is a statement that
There being more of us than there are of you, we will take from you what we desire, be grateful for what we leave you and is a return to the paradigm of '
Plunder and Pillage
There is no viture in the alternatives to Capitalism
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Apr 29, 11:41:00 AM:
Apology in advance for the long post length.
This is NOT very bad news for Republicans or conservatives. Specter will in all probability not change one single vote he will cast over the next year and a half until he is un-elected. The only change will be the party that takes the blame for his actions. I have great respect for the Senator, but over the years it seems that for every conservative decision he made, he felt he should make a half-dozen liberal ones to balance it out.
The Republican party is not by any means overcome with a “lust for ideological purity”. Consider Vice-President Cheney and his daughter for one. On the other hand, can you name one pro-life politician who spoke at the Democrat Convention?
The big divide between conservatives and moderates is *both* on social and fiscal issues. A good fiscal conservative going to Washington is much like Weight Watchers holding their meetings in the middle of Big Al’s Bar-B-Que Buffet, the temptation is overwhelming, and all that money is right there for the grabbing. Nobody should be able to swim in Uncle Scrooge McDuck’s money bin for over a decade without being pulled out, their pockets dumped, and sent for a period of time to their home state for deprogramming.
The social liberal Republicans view we social conservatives as some sort of weird hillbilly hick. Sorry about that, it’s how we were raised.
-We believe that it is really a life, not just a clump of cells. You’re pregnant, you are responsible for the life within you, and your “choice” is denying that choice to your baby. Programs that try to push widespread contraception tend to run up the rates of teenage pregnancy/STDs, not down. Abstinence does work every time it is tried, it works for teen pregnancy, it works for drug abuse, it works for smoking and it works for drinking. It makes our policy a non-optimal but accepted “Please don’t, but if you do, use this.”
-That gun we own is ours, we like it. We like taking it to the range and knocking holes in paper targets, and if you decide to break into our home to take our stuff and hurt our children, we will regrettably call the police and tell them to send an ambulance to pick up the body.
-We believe that marriage should be forever, between a man and a woman. We do not think divorce is a “good thing”, but in cases where the marriage has broken, it is a sad necessity. If Bob and Ted and Howard want to hire a like-minded minister and pledge eternal loyalty to each other, that’s fine. But we believe the State has the authority to grant “special privileges” to male/female couples who have legally bound themselves to each other due to the long-term benefit a State gains from this in terms of children, stability, and social continuity.
-If the gay rights crowd want to go to the State and argue for the same privileges in the Legislature, go ahead. We disagree. But when they go to the Courts and claim that the same laws that have been in effect for the past two centuries are somehow magically unconstitutional this year, I feel it is my right to uphold the definition of marriage as put forward by the representatives of the people with a State constitutional amendment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7399375/
The “appeal to ethnic minorities” claim is foolish. The Democrats have that locked up. Any legislation promoted on the grounds that it “expands opportunities for the (insert minority here)” is almost exclusively sponsored by a Democrat and One Of The Usual Suspects Republican. Real change is promoting a color-blind, ethnic-blind smaller government that does not pick winners and losers. (a surefire bet for corruption, as companies make “donations” in exchange for “favors”)
In short, Arlen was not pushed. He jumped a long time ago. He just made it official yesterday.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 12:13:00 PM:
Scott Rasmussen has some interesting thoughts on these topics.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 01:23:00 PM:
Looking forward, where's the basis on which we can build a winning coalition?
Newt Gingrich has focused on this very question for some time now, and he's talking on spending, taxes and social security. My own sense is that independents are suspicious of the tax argument, and GOP'ers should therefore focus on responsible spending, where I think a lot of citizens are very concerned about Obama. That argument needs to come from Governors because congressional GOP politicians seem totally discredited.
Spending, spending, spending. Followed by national security, health care and energy policy. Those are issues where I think a basis for broad center-right agreement exists and those are the issues on which Republicans looking to beat Democrats should seek to succeed.
Talking about social issues creates as many enemies as friends, so those issues don't seem to help in building coalition. I would just deep-six those issues entirely.
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 29, 03:09:00 PM:
DEC - So, what is the best self-teaching system (specific CDs, CD-ROMs, books, combos) for learning Mandarin? And it there a substantial difference between hanging out in Asia with (primarily) Asian ladies as compared to being in the States and consorting with American women? From Singapore, where is the nearest lift-serviced skiing? The sailing I think I have a handle on, as long as I avoid certain areas, or bring a .50 cal. With sat tv and/or SlingBox, I think I can still follow my sports teams. I don't think I'd have any problems adjusting to the climate or the diet.
The main problem is that parts of my father's family have been here for more than three centuries, and I am sort of attached to this part of the world. I also believe that there was something exceptional about the American experience. It is a tough decision to punt when it is not crystal clear that it is fourth and long.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 03:23:00 PM:
The alternative to capitalism was bartering and gift-giving. That was European economics before the introduction of capitalism from the East.
-------------------------
A true conservative platform.
1. Rescind the 1965 Immigration Act.
a. rescind the citizenship of all non-European peoples after 1965
b. repatriating those people to their respective countries
2. Rescind the amendment that gave Woman the vote. Women vote socialistically. Oh ya, there are a few that vote conservatively but the basic Political unit is the Family and the Head of the Family, the Male, the Father, should be the only one to vote. Conservatives that support suffrage and promote it are oxymorons. In order to have a conservative limited government---women are denied to vote. Women do NOT belong in politics. Women have NO place in politics.
Sorry, but if you don't stop women's suffrage---you don't belong in power.
And this goes to the core of modern conservativism in America, it always sooner or later adopts the progressive position.
3. The only people that should vote is landed people. When Andrew Jackson opened up the vote to all men---he destroyed the limited government.
a. Military veterans should have twenty votes apiece. As Aristotle noted, It is the military class that defends the constitution.
Marxist academics control this country not the European Christian that put on the uniform and put his life on the line. European politics has always centered around the Warrior class. That a bunch of panzy effete socialist academics have usurped that, is quite scandalous. Effete academics that have spent their whole lives in a classroom, an ivory tower. A Veteran who has put his life on the line, should have more say than some cowardly panzy civilian puke.
4. True conservatives uphold Church and State. Secularism can not define and judge moral matters. Only a Church can do that. Our Duty as Europeans is to the standards of our culture. European culture always existed with a priestly caste whether it be druids, pagan priests or Christian priests. The priestly caste is an essential part and as Europeans we need to return to that. The Vox Populi is not Vox Dei.
As Plutarch said, "We are NOT here to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
Second, Conservativism is NOT about supporting, advocating or advancing Multicultural society and its morals. Are not European conservatives about defending and upholding Western Culture and Western Civilization? That is where our loyalty and fidelity lie. Not in some Marxist utopia.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 03:28:00 PM:
I wish I could delete that last post- trolling wrecks a good conversation.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 03:28:00 PM:
Folks, don't make this simple event too complicated, it is not some kind of national exemplar. It's Arlen Specter running into a wall, after all these years.
Specter is not a pleasant personality or a typical gregarious pol. Pennsylvanians have tolerated him over the years, mostly for the pork and constituent service he provided, and because the alternative candidates were no great shakes either.
His time is running out, he finally pissed off too many people in his own party. As Jay Cost said today in Realclear Politics, he never had many fans in Western PA, and Southeastern PA is turning Democratic.
All this talk about unwelcome moderates is overblown. It's just Arlen Specter who has worn out his welcome and refuses to retire gracefully, so he has to pull a party change stunt and seek the cover of the Rendell party machinery.
By Anthony, at
Wed Apr 29, 03:31:00 PM:
WLindsayWheeler said...
(snip!)
Sad thing is, you're just the kind of guy Olbermann would hold up as representative of the Right.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 03:45:00 PM:
Because all you are doing is playing charades.
First, you need to define Conservativism. In order to know it, one must know its history.
It is clear---you are all clueless on History.
You can't conserve a Novus Ordo, and You can't conserve Nihilism. You are playing charades. All you are doing is creating a facsimile of the Truth.
And yes, I am a true Rightist, A Monarchist; A defender of the Old Order and A traditionalist Christian. The rest of you are just blowing in the wind. And that is why the Republican party is in such a mess--because it has NO foundation; no Truths; and no conservativism. The Truth is what matters. Absolute Truth is what matters. If it is not the Truth, then you are playing charades.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Apr 29, 04:40:00 PM:
To Escort81
English is the language of commerce. You don't have to speak Chinese. You have to learn to think like the Chinese.
I took 18 months off work in the early 1980s to study ethnic Chinese trading companies in Southeast Asia from the inside (a rare opportunity for a Westerner in those days). In fact, I never made a lot of money until I learned how to think like ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs (the "Lords of the Rim"). It has helped me in Africa as well as in Asia.
I adore Asian women. And they adore me. Good manners work everywhere.
Here is a link to several years of Time magazine's "The Best of Asia":
http://jungletrader.blogspot.com/2009/04/asia.html
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Apr 29, 04:58:00 PM:
P.S.
To Escort81
Re: Asian women
You may find this post from the archives of my blog interesting:
Title: "One Night in Jakarta"
Subject: "During a conversation about romance, a friend asked me to reveal my most bizarre pick-up experience. I immediately remembered an Indonesian woman in Jakarta."
Link:
http://jungletrader.blogspot.com/2007/05/one-night-in-jakarta.html
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 05:25:00 PM:
Knowledge is key. Why did I post that women do not belong in politics.
To understand this subject, one must read, Leadership is Male, A Clear, Concise Look At What the Bible Teaches, by J. David Pawson and Sex Differences: Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy by Yves Christen.
The Bible teaches that the Male Leads and the Natural Law backs up the Bible. Truth is a Unitary whole.
Mr. Christen points out that female thinking more often than not is tied up with their emotions. Politics must be done logically and the ability to foresee, only possible with a Male mind.
Leadership requires the physical ability to make obedience and carry out. Women lack upper body strength. Nature fitted the Male with upperbody strength. If the woman was to lead, then nature would have equipped women to lead---but it hasn't. That is the Natural Law.
Those two books exemplify Western Culture and Tradition.
Unisexism is Socialism. All Socialist movements require and demand women suffrage. It was woman's suffrage that enabled the rise of Adolf Hitler. Unisexism is Socialist/Marxist doctrine, so I don't understand so-called "conservatives" promoting it or defending it.
Instead of spouting opinion---maybe some book reading is necessary, some understanding of REALITY.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 05:40:00 PM:
As far as Senator Spector is concerned, I read somewhere today that he votes with the Republican part 65% of the time (over the last term?). I'm not sure if that is on all issues or just certain "key" issues. The bet is that now he will vote with his new Democrat buddies much more often.
So yes, despite some of his unpleasant attributes, his vote did make a difference (and will in the future). He left, however, as others have more eloquently explained, out of sheer political pragmatism, as it was unlikely he would win the Senatorial primary in the Republican party. I guess part of the political cram down was to take Pat Toomey out and break his legs and tell him not to run for the Republican nomination, huh? Tolerance and moderation at work.
Still likely he (Spector) will win the general election in Pennsylvania, if he lives that long. He has probably guaranteed a nice obituary in the NY Times due to his switch. And that's worth something, I guess.
-David
By Reaganite Republican Resistance, at
Wed Apr 29, 05:45:00 PM:
Sorry, but this cynical, self-serving move had absolutely nothing to do with values, policy, or any high-minded thinking of any kind- though President Obama surely would like for you to think that.
Everybody knows he did it because he was down 21% in the polls leading-up to the GOP primary for his seat, he already admitted as such- Joey Pluggs made a deal with him. The sad truth is that this mediocre hack has spent three decades in the Senate, while accomplishing very little.
And Barack and him have a lot in common- as unprincipled political opportunists, I’m sure they’ll get along just great-
Just a little over a month ago, the Specter said in an interview that he wouldn’t switch parties due to the importance of checks and balances.
And back in 2001, Sen. Arlen Specter, then a Republican, proposed a rule forbidding party switches… he was upset when Vt Sen. Jim Jeffords’ left the GOP to become an independent.
Who knows what the truth is with this guy, you’ll never get it from him.
With all due respect, Senator- don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out. Nobody on our side’s going to miss you.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Apr 29, 06:28:00 PM:
After reading some of this drivel in the comments and the facile stuff in the blogspot I'm sure Arlen would say he made the right decision. And weren't you all the same crowd who called Joe Lieberman "Loserman" back in the day? No he's a hero, not a turncoat. My, my how the worm has indeed turned.
Look at the bright side--something positive. Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, honored Sojourner Truth today in the Capitol. yes, Sojourner's bust in bronze, their among the grim visaged other busts.
Oh, I forgot. You all don't give a crap about stuff like that. Which is why you're in the pickle you're in. Which is why Specter said bye.
Join the 21st Century, guys, and stop the bullshit wingnut soap opera, please. It's pathelic...and now pathological.
By davod, at
Wed Apr 29, 08:18:00 PM:
"grim visaged other busts"
Oh my. Is Sojourner Truth the only Bust smiling?
PS: I hope Michelle didn't get airsick on the low flight over New York city.
By Elise, at
Wed Apr 29, 08:28:00 PM:
Because it will probably lead to the enactment of laws and entitlements that will become all but impossible to repeal no matter how robust the ultimate reaction against them (if there is such a reaction).I actually put up a post disagreeing with this earlier today. Specter's defection may cause the enactment of laws and entitlements that will ultimately be seen to be bad ideas; that much I agree with. I do not, however, agree that they will be irreversible. Didn't Margaret Thatcher manage to reverse a lot of Left-leaning policies when the British got fed up enough with them? And even in this country we managed to reform welfare, however briefly.
I have faith that if we find ourselves on the wrong path, we'll figure out a way to choose a different one.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 09:00:00 PM:
I forgot another segment of early European economics, self-sufficiency. Early Europeans were mostly agrarianists around the Mediterreanean. It was "self-sufficiency, barter and gift giving" that comprised early European economics before the advent of capitalism. Granted the hostile weather of Scandinavia would impel pillaging and plundering.
On Mr. Chambers ideas, he is a perfect example of the academic class. "We all must move into the 21st century". Socrates said in Plato's Republic,
""There are also opposite maxims and habits of pleasure which flatter and attract the soul, but do not influence those of us who have any sense of right, and they continue to Obey and Honour the maxims of their fathers."""
That is the creed of conservativism. We are connected to our past; we honour our forefathers. We are rooted in our history. To be a conservative is to be a traditionalist. "Modernity" is a code word for Marxism and moving into the 21st century does what? Does not the Scriptures say, "There is nothing new under the sun"? There is no such thing as a "new man".
The Bible says,
LXX Jer. 6.16 "Stand ye in the ways, and se, and ask for the Old paths of the Lord..."
LXX Ps 142, "I remembered the days of Old"
LXX 76,5, "Remember ancient years".
The prophet St. Jeremiah bewailed: "They fail; leaving the ancient paths".
And Christ said, "Palios christos estin"---The Old is Golden.
Nowhere in Scripture does it advocate "moving into the Socialist 21st century". As for me, I follow the Lord. That is the conservative position.
Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I suspect that not much here have really done any "examining" of what you believe. Are modern American conservatives deceived?
European Thought revolves around Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. It is central to logic (logos). Yet much of American so-called conservative thought does NOT match anything in history or tied to Traditional European culture. So how do you square the circle? If you break the principle of non-contradiction---how can you say one is conservative in the first place? or European? or logical? The American so-called conservativism is a basket case of contradictions. Is that really sound? Does Truth contradict itself? Maybe the people out there need to reacquaint themselves with Paramenides principle and start thinking like Europeans.
Ohh, and by the way Mr. Chambers, Aristotle quotes from an ancient proverb,
"Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian".
The word "meet" is Righteousness (dikaios). The election of Obama is really UNrighteousness, adikia which the English bible also translates as Lawlessness. And since government is a reflection of the people, that means that the American people are Unrighteous, adikia. Conservativism is about following the dictates of Righteousness--not marxist ideology.
By , at
Thu Apr 30, 10:45:00 AM:
This blog is really going down hill. It's not enough that CCC posts his hateful drivel here, now we have the craziness of "W. Lindsay Wheeler" to wade through.
Can we have an "ignore" feature that filters out theri posts? Do those even exist on blogs? I have one on my baseball forum and it's wonderful.
By , at
Thu Apr 30, 08:55:00 PM:
Mr. Chambers is the poster child of academia. His name links to his bio which is an interesting read.
But his post speaks volumes about who he is.
First, notice the gloating. The man is proud that the WASP, that built this country, who made it possible for HIS standard of living, are being dispossessed. He is proud of that. If you meet leftists, they gloat on the destruction they are making on the structures of the Dominant European male.
The law is "Love thy neighbor". Love first goes to one's blood, to one's kin. Kinship is what the Bible endorses. Yet, he gladly thumbs his nose at his fellow neighbors. He is glad to undermine his fellow man.
Xenophon in his Spartan Constitution remarks on their Virtues and then adds this:
""...but the wicked man and the coward are traitors to the whole body politic". x, 6
By the glee that Mr. Chambers exhibits, shows that he is traitor to his own people. This is what modern Academia are---Traitors.
He is a communist fellow traveller preparing the way Globalization. He comes here to rub the European nose in the dirt.
He calls himself a Christian but the Ecumenical Councils anathematized anybody that taught slaves to run from their masters. That canon still holds and by praising Sojourner Truth, he is sharing in her sin of rebellion. Not only is he a turncoat to his own kin, he is also a heretic and a Judas in his own religion.
The Wicked man is always a traitor.
(Note to TigerHawk teenager who is going off to college---better think again. College is NOT what it is supposed to be. You go there for indoctrination.
Better yet, instead of hanging with traitors, enlist in the military and hang with Patriots and learn skills, camaraderie, and manliness. The ancients considered only Agrarianism and the Art of War to be Liberal education.)
