Friday, February 28, 2014

No, Conservatives Aren’t Always On The Wrong Side Of History



By David Harsanyi
Wednesday, December 11, 2013

If you’re interested in reading one of the silliest trolls in recent memory, head over to Michael Tomasky’s column at The Daily Beast to learn how conservatives are entrenched on the wrong side of history. No, not only recently, and not only when they were wrong about Nelson Mandela in the 1980s, but going all the way back to the founding of the republic – and, who knows, maybe even to the reign of Ramses II.


    Do you support the American Revolution? I should hope so. You would not have, however, had you been a conservative in 1785. American Loyalists, perhaps 20 percent of the white population of the day, were devoted to king and crown for mostly the usual reasons: They were older, better established, had more money, were scared of change.


(Indeed, a revolution led by the American gentry hit all the touchstones of the modern American Left: lower taxes, muskets, individual liberty and unfettered economic activity.)


    How about the abolition of slavery? I reckon you’re on board with that. Well, Lord knows you wouldn’t have been if you’d been among the 1860 conservatives who started a war over it (and whose apologists today insist the Civil War was not about slavery).

    In terms of domestic politics, few polemical tasks are easier than demonstrating how wrong conservatism has been about pretty much everything in all of American history. Eradication of child labor? Why, an imposition on business owners to run their factories as they saw fit, you socialist! Giving women the right to vote? Women?! They simply don’t possess the logical faculties to be entrusted with such a responsibility, and anyway where will it end—I suppose you’ll be suggesting that black people get the franchise next? Segregation. Miscegenation laws. Immigration. Civil rights. The environmental movement. Conservatism’s record: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.


It is true that few polemical tasks are easier than brewing some historical tropes. Here, let’s give it a shot:
 
Do you oppose fascism? I should hope so. You would not, however, had you been a liberal in 1920s when the American Left was busy praising this new ideology of coercion and statism emerging in Europe.

Do you oppose communism? I should hope so. But you would not have, however, had you been a liberal in 1920s and 1930s. You would be celebrating the oppressive regimes that were murdering tens of millions of people in the name of “progress.”

Do you oppose needless war and bloodshed? I should hope so. But you would not, however, had you been a liberal in early 20th century, as you would probably have voted for a bitterly racist president who embroiled America in the one the most illogical, consequential and bloodiest conflicts in mankind’s history.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and so on.

It certainly can get confusing. Does the racism of the early progressive movement count? How about the nihilism of the 60s Malthusian? Remember the America Firsters! Forget Japanese internment camps. It must take a selective memory to always — “always” — find yourself on the right side of history.

Now, it would take considerable effort to untangle the muddled revisionism of Tomasky’s piece. For starters, it rests on the idea that this nation’s philosophical divisions have remained static for hundreds of years. But let’s just take the inane insinuation that conservatives would support slavery if only they had an opportunity. It was the flourishing of classical liberalism that helped bring about the end of slavery around the world – for starters. And these days ‘liberals’ like Adam Smith, John Locke and Frederic Bastiat are read and praised by libertarians (“kookoos” who peddle, according to Tomasky, an “overrated” intellectual consistency) and many conservatives, but rarely by the modern Left. William Wilberforce is a hero to the Evangelical Right not the secular Left. In America, the kinds of people Tomasky might refer to as theocrats were the moral center of the abolitionist movement, not to mention its most relentless crusaders.  Today, it’s the American Right that concerns itself most often with the egregious attacks on liberal ideals in autocratic states across the Muslim world. For all its faults, and there are many, the Right was on the right side of history for two of the biggest issues of the second half of the 20th century: the morality of capitalism and depravity of communism.

The main problem, though, with Tomasky’s piece is that it conflates “conservative” ideology and disposition. Indeed, “conservatives,” if we define them as folks who are antagonistic to any change at any time for any reason, will find themselves eternally on the wrong side of history.

Let’s give it a shot: Union-run public school systems are dependably failing most of our children. Why have conservatives like Michael Tomasky supported these archaic institutions that destroy the future of our children?

Then again, even if we accept conservatism and liberalism as Tomasky characterizes them, they still have a nuanced role in a healthy society, as they create a tension between traditionalist and progressives views that allows us to move, rather than lurch, forward. Even if they are always “wrong,” there are often serving a purpose.

As Jim Antle recently wrote, on conservatism and the complexity of history:


    Conservatism at its best has an appreciation for human nature, including a realistic assessment of man’s inhumanity to man. That means attempting to conform to a just moral order while realizing that history isn’t always a simple morality tale.


But while Tomasky’s understanding of conservatism is misleading, his definition of liberalism is just humorous: liberals are people, he explains, “who weren’t happy with things the way they were and saw they had to change, and who have been on the side of personal liberation and de-concentration of political power. Those people are virtually by definition liberals and reformers and radicals.”

(Good to know those of you advocating for reforming Social Security, Medicare and abortion laws will find ourselves on the right side of history.)

How about today? Modern liberalism champions concentrating political power on almost every front. Where, outside of gay marriage and abortion (an issue that an honest observer would concedes is about when life should be worthy of protection), does the Left support the de-concentration of power or liberation of the individual? Progressivism champions direct democracy, the centralization of federal power, national health care policy, national education policy, national banking policy, national everything policy. Nudging. Coercing. Mandating. Radical, indeed.

To skate around substantive debate, folks like Joan Walsh have honed an uncanny ability to bore into souls of millions of Americans to find latent racial animosities. But Tomasky does her one better, arguing that the genetic code of conservatism is wrong — not sometimes, but “always” — preemptively rendering all positions from the Right unworthy of discussion. That kind of position tells us a lot more about his intellectual honesty than anything else.

Let Authority of 'Hidden Law' Rule in Arizona



By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, February 28, 2014

Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we're living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated -- or else.

Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered "hate speech."

Or, if you refuse to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding. That was the horror story that sparked much of this foofaraw.

Arizona's proposed SB 1062 would have amended the state's 15-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a few minor ways so as to cover businesses the way it already covers government. Arizona's religious freedom statute was modeled on a similar federal law signed by Bill Clinton with large bipartisan majorities in both houses. It would have allowed small businesses to decline work that violated their consciences, unless the government could show a compelling reason why such refusal was unreasonable or unjust.

Speaking of unreasonableness, according to ESPN's Tony Kornheiser, if Arizona allows bakers to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples, gays may have to wear "yellow stars" like the Jews of Nazi Germany. It would be Jim Crow for gays according to, well, too many people to list.

Now lest you get the wrong impression, I am no opponent of gay marriage. I would have preferred a compromise on civil unions, but that ship sailed. The country, never mind the institution of marriage, has far bigger problems than gays settling down, filing joint tax returns and arguing about whose turn it is to do the dishes. By my lights it's progress that gay activists and left-wingers are celebrating the institution of marriage as essential. Though I do wish they'd say that more often about heterosexual marriage, too.

But I find the idea that government can force people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason repugnant. I agree with my (openly gay and black) friend, columnist Deroy Murdock. He thinks private businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. Must a gay baker make a cake for the hateful idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church? Must he write "God hates fags!" in the icing?

The ridiculous invocations of Jim Crow are utterly ahistorical, by the way. Jim Crow was state-enforced, and businesses that wanted to serve blacks could be prosecuted. Let the market work and the same social forces that have made homosexuality mainstream will make refusing service to gays a horrible business decision -- particularly in the wedding industry!

When August "Gussie" Busch, the CEO of Budweiser, bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953, he was vexed by the Brooklyn Dodgers' success, which was due in large part thanks to Jackie Robinson. He asked Cardinals executives how many blacks they were cultivating, and when they said "None," he was appalled. "How can it be the great American game if blacks can't play? Hell, we sell beer to everyone!" he exclaimed. The next year the Cardinals had a black first baseman, Tom Alston.

In 2000, Jonathan Rauch, a (gay) brilliant intellectual and champion of gay marriage, wrote a wonderful essay on "hidden law," which he defined as "the norms, conventions, implicit bargains, and folk wisdoms that organize social expectations, regulate everyday behavior, and manage interpersonal conflicts." Basically, hidden law is the unwritten legal and ethic code of civil society. Abortion, assisted suicide and numerous other hot-button issues were once settled by people doing right as they saw it without seeking permission from the government.

"Hidden law is exceptionally resilient," Rauch observed, "until it is dragged into politics and pummeled by legalistic reformers." That crowd believes all good things must be protected by law and all bad things must be outlawed.

As society has grown more diverse (a good thing) and social trust has eroded (a bad thing), the authority of hidden law has atrophied. Once it was understood that a kid's unlicensed lemonade stand, while technically "illegal," was just fine. Now kids are increasingly asked, "Do you have a permit for this?"

Gay activists won the battle for hidden law a long time ago. If they recognized that, the sane response would be, "You don't want my business because I'm gay? Go to hell," followed by a vicious review on Yelp. The baker would pay a steep price for a dumb decision, and we'd all be spared a lot of stupid talk about yellow stars.

Proposed Military Cuts Examined in Light of New Poll of Nation's Disappointment in President



By Matt Towery
Friday, February 28, 2014

If anyone believes that this nation is truly left of center, they should consider a new poll coming from the usually administration-friendly CBS News. Their polling unit reports that a majority of Americans are disappointed in President Obama and give him lousy ratings for his handling foreign policy and the economy.

But perhaps the biggest failures of this administration have yet to be recognized by most voters. The average American has no idea how many executive orders have been issued to set in place the president's agenda or how many new changes in rules and regulations this administration is pursuing, many of which will have a profound impact on the lives of millions in the future. Just consider the "minor" move the administration is advocating that would place millions of seniors taking ant-depressants at risk of no longer receiving the specific medication chosen by their own doctor to deal with a serious problem.

Shifting medicines, upping regulations and creating red tape has been a hallmark of the Obama years. But now comes the next major blunder. President Obama is proposing a substantial reduction in our military that could reduce our troop levels to the lowest since 1940.

Perhaps the only person who should take comfort in this is former President Jimmy Carter, who has forever been the butt of jokes and comments for having allegedly dismantled our military during his years in office. I have noted before, Carter did make reductions, but his actions were not as drastic as those proposed by Obama. Moreover, Carter served admirably in the Navy and was never thought to have an intuitive bias against all things military. I do not doubt that Carter, in his years as president, believed that America was indeed exceptional.

And there are some points of fairness to be given to the administration's position. The argument that we must beef up our ability to protect against cyber-attack is real and persuasive. And sometimes the innovations that come from shifting from manpower-driven efforts to those of technology do pay off. Even Carter's years led to the development of what became drone technology. And it should be added that cuts Carter made occurred while the nation was in the grips of an inflationary and dismal economy.

But Obama's cuts come in the middle of what he would have us believe is a great economic recovery. Which begs the question of what impact Obama's newest military proposal might have on what is truly an already jobless recovery.

There is a good chance that even Democrats in Congress will reject the administration's proposed cuts. There are aspects to it that would hit the pocketbook of those lucky enough to remain part of the military and their families, and even Democrats in Congress are rejecting that notion.

Still, it seems that the president and his team are ignoring the so often repeated notion that "those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it." It was less than 25 years ago that Saddam Hussein chose to occupy Kuwait and force the U.S. to deploy troops in a massive operation. And just years earlier, the Soviet Union was still intact and the threat of armed conflict was an ever-present part of a Cold War.

Are we sure another resurgence of a Soviet-like power is not in the making? Can we be sure that other nations, seeing weakness, test our will and might in years to come?

Yes, conflicts in the world are more complicated and yes, our nation has likely committed too many troops into too many wars where an ultimate victory proved temporary at best.

And no, I do not agree with Dick Cheney's comment that we should cut food stamps rather than troop levels. That simply sounds so callous and only puts an angry and ugly spin on an otherwise reasonable concept that we can make other cuts in many areas, rather than reducing our troop levels.

Imagine that in the very same week he learns that most Americans consider his presidency a disappointment. Barack Obama decides to press forward with this added effort to dismantle America's strength.

It's looking more and more like in his mind, the only thing exceptional about America is Barack Obama.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

America's Quiver of Outrage is Empty



By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, February 27, 2014

Don't step over the line and re-militarize the Rhineland. Absorbing Austria would cross a red line. Breaking up Czechoslovakia is unacceptable. Get out of Poland by the announced deadline. The rest was history.

Don't dare blow up another American military barracks overseas. Don't ever consider another attack on the World Trade Center. Don't even try blowing up one more American embassy in East Africa. Don't ever put a hole in a U.S. warship again. The rest was history.

President Obama issued yet another one of those sorts of warnings to stop the violence to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych just before protestors drove him out of office. "There will be consequences if people step over the line," Obama threatened.

Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, amplified that veiled warning. He called the Ukrainian government repression "completely outrageous" -- as opposed to just outrageous or completely, completely outrageous.

Secretary of State John Kerry joined the chorus of condemnation by hinting at economic sanctions if Yanukovych didn't stop his violent crackdown on protestors.

Why does this rhetorical assault sound familiar?

Over the last five years, Obama has issued serial deadlines to Iran to cease and desist from its ongoing enrichment of uranium. All the while, more Iranian centrifuges went online.

Later, Obama turned from deadlines to red lines. He threatened Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with one about using chemical weapons. "A red line for us," the president warned, "is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

Assad moved over that American red line, using chemical weapons to gas his own people, and is now winning the war against the Syrian insurgents. In the end, an embarrassed Obama was reduced to denying that he had never issued a red line in the first place: "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

The administration's latest cry of "outrageous" does not seem so absolute either. Remember, the president himself used that exact adjective to condemn the IRS scandal when it was revealed that the tax agency was inordinately focusing on conservative groups.

Later, after various key IRS officials had invoked the Fifth Amendment, resigned or abruptly retired, Obama brushed off the scandal. It was, he said, mostly a media event conjured up by "outraged" journalists. Somehow, a scandal that the president once decried as institutional abuse ended up as a media melodrama perpetrated by unduly outraged reporters.

Will the Ukrainian mess now abate due to Kerry's hints at sanctions?

Given Kerry's loud global-warming sermonizing and the administration's serial threats, bad actors abroad probably believe that burning too much coal is more likely to anger the U.S. than shooting protestors or gassing enemies.

After the Obama administration finally assembled a coalition of allies to impose tough sanctions against Iran, and after the trade embargoes began to bite the theocracy, Obama, without warning his coalition, abruptly relaxed those embargoes and entered into talks with the Iranians.

The message? Imposing sanctions is a difficult business. When they finally work, they are likely to be abruptly lifted if the squeezed nation sends out a few peace feelers and wants to feign appearing reasonable.

The U.S. has now shot so many rhetorical arrows that its quiver of indignation is empty -- and the world's troublemakers may know it. An administration that ignores almost all of its own Obamacare deadlines surely cannot expect others to abide by any timetables it sets abroad.

There may be no viable solutions to the violence in Syria or Ukraine. The messes in Egypt and Libya, the Chinese provocations to their neighbors, the North Korean lunacy and the spiraling violence in Venezuela certainly have no easy answers. But not knowing quite what to do is not the same as knowing certainly what not to do.

Although the U.S. alone seems to honor its promised deadlines of withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, the world's aggressors sense that the Obama administration's bluster is predictably to be followed by more bluster. Therefore, they have decided to risk aggrandizements while they can. In the mind of Vladimir Putin, today Ukraine, tomorrow the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. For the Iranian theocrats, if chemical WMD are OK in Syria, why not nuclear WMD in Iran? For China, when Japan backs off, why shouldn't Taiwan, South Korea or the Philippines?

Such a seemingly insignificant loss of deterrence is how wars often start -- when an aggressive nation bets that loud words signal that consequences will never follow. So it is emboldened to up the ante to try something even riskier.

America's step-over line/deadline/red line outrage is long past monotonous and empty -- and the result has been an ever scarier world.

Aloha Deniers! Obamacare Costs Hawaii $27,906 Per Enrollee So Far



By John Ransom
Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Los Angeles Times details how despite high hopes Obamacare deniers had for welfare-friendly Hawaii, thus far only 4,300 people have enrolled in Obama’s home state.

That’s $27,906 per enrollee. Aloha! Which, fittingly, in can be translated in English to mean "hello" and "goodbye."

And of course, 4,300 is not the number of insured people-- those who have paid for an Obamacare policy-- just the numbers of people who have completed applications. And I suspect I know what SEIU employees have been doing in their free time.

Aaaand… So do you.

I think the same people who filled out fraudulent voter registration forms might be able to handle a few fraudulent Obamacare applications in their spare time.

Just think how many more they’d be able to fill out if we raised the minimum wage.

“Democratic state Sen. Josh Green,” writes the Times, “an emergency room doctor and chairman of the Senate Health Committee, says he has been unable to get clear answers about the agency's operations and viability. He said that with $205 million in grant funds, ‘You could have actually directly paid for people's healthcare ... and begun to approach full care for everybody.’"

Yes, and a new car.

All this comes on news that 11 million lucky people who liked their insurance premiums, don’t get to keep their insurance premiums. That’s because insurers are no longer able to calculate age—the most important factor in insurance costs—into premiums.

As a result, costs are going up for young people, who don’t use the system and down for those who use the system more.

“The new health care law may raise insurance premiums for 11 million small business employees and lower rates for 6 million others,” says the Associated Press. “That's an estimate from a report by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The report says higher rates are partly due to the law's requirement that premiums can no longer be based on a person's age. That has sent premiums higher for younger workers, and lower for older ones.”

It’s a very good thing we didn’t know what was in Obamacare when they passed Obamacare.

Lives might have been lost.

As it is, we see Democrats, even in liberal Hawaii, demanding answers. And solutions.

Hawaii has proposed a take over by the state for the Obamacare Exchange.

From the LA Times:

"Will it actually get us closer to the transparency and accountability that everybody's screaming for?" asked Democratic state Rep. Angus L.K. McKelvey, chairman of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee, which stopped short of backing a state takeover. "Making it a state agency — while on paper it may sound like we're going to address these issues ... there are other sorts of issues that are going to emerge that could actually make it an even bigger train wreck."

An even BIGGER TRAIN WRECK?

Come on. That’s not possible.

Unless of course you dropped the whole thing in the lap of the State Department Talking Points team under Hillary Clinton, in conjunction with the folks over at the Department of Energy who made “green” loans and combined it with the people who “saved” Detroit, in consultation with the award-winning Chevy Volt team, while not forgetting to ask Streets and Sanitation in Chicago to weigh in along with the Illinois Select Committee on Public Pension and Whatnot.Oh, and let’s not forget getting an assist from the folks who are negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons and the team that put together the Syria strategy on massaging the message.

So, I suppose Hawaii Rep. Angus L.K. McKelvey is correct.

In the right hands the Democrats could make Obamacare a bigger train wreck than it already is.

Hillary 2016.

Aloha! Hello? Goodbye?

Anyone?