Archive for November 2011

Obama Campaign Set to Abandon White Working Class

This is no surprise. Democrats have been abandoning the white middle class for years. My parents were solid working class stock forged by the Depression. They voted Democrat for generations. My mother doesn’t know what has happened to the party.

Party’s change. It usually takes decades but they aren’t static groups. As society changes, so do they. Parties in a flourishing republic should reflect people’s views, and as they evolve, so should those of the parties.

What’s interesting is that the Democrats seem to want a coalition of two very different groups. Minority voters who tend to be extremely socially conservative, and white liberals who are extremely socially liberal. By jettisoning the white working class, which also tends to be socially conservative, the party will exacerbate the tensions between the two groups. Eventually some are going to feel that the party no longer reflects its values and will move to another. In a two party system, there is only one other “other”: the Republicans.

I’ve written in the past about the Democrats taking the minority vote for granted, and how the GOP was better suited for black and Hispanic voters who tend to be more religious and less accommodating of gay marriage. Politics is a zero sum game, so the changes the Democrats make will facilitate those by the Republicans. The parties will change, or at least what they stand for will, but the battle between the two will continue.

Short Memories

As Congressman Barney Frank exits stage left, I think we must remember his contribution to the economic mess we find ourselves in.

New York Times, September 11, 2003 – The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

.....

“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Fragility

I’ve always believed that the Jews got a raw deal from their god. Things would have been a lot easier for the Jews had they found the promised land in present day Florida or maybe in an isolated spot in the Japanese archipelago. Instead He found them and they Him in the world’s crossroads. Every king, general or determined clan leader with a pointed stick had to pass through the Sinai, Canaan, Judea and Sumeria on their way to subjugate someone else. It strikes me as the equivalent of trying to survive in the middle of a busy intersection.

Nevertheless the Jews managed to do it. For close to 5,000 years they have struggled, triumphed, been slaughtered, overcome and suffered through it all, yet managed to remain faithful to their faith. While I don’t share it, it would be impossible for me not to appreciate their accomplishment and support it in any way I can.

It is difficult for Americans to appreciate the situation in Israel. The nation is tiny as this graphic below shows.
US Israel comparison, copyright zionism-israel.com
Americans have benefited from our isolation. Bounded on two sides by wide oceans and relatively weak nation states on the other sides, we have been able to prosper and grow without the threat of invasion for most of our history. Israel has never been so lucky. It’s borders are much less defensible. There are no natural barriers to protect it. It has never known peace with the neighbors, and has spent the bulk of its history as a story told from one generation to the next, its land owned by others and its people scattered to the corners of the earth.

In their diaspora, the Jewish people were subjected to the most heinous acts imaginable, and that was before the Holocaust when our ability to imagine horror and depravity reached its limit and was surpassed by the brutality of the Nazis and their sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe. Israel wasn’t founded on a whim in 1948. The Jews founded Israel because they needed a place which they controlled where they wouldn’t be kicked out, forced to convert, sold into slavery, or stripped naked and machine gunned. Throughout the diaspora Jews had been welcomed by one regime or another. But regimes rise and fall and leaders change. A safe haven one day could mount a pogrom or expel the Jews the next. The dream of Israel, and later its reality, gave the Jewish people what had been taken away by the Babylonians and later the Romans: a home.

Today this home is in a very bad neighborhood. The revolutions that are happening throughout the Middle East do not portend well for Israel, and Israelis aren’t as sanguine about events there as Americans or Europeans. While the mainstream media in the West applauds the downfall of Arab dictatorships in the region, the Israelis understand that the forces that are overthrowing these regimes aren’t democratic or tolerant as many commentators in the West assume. The use of the term “Israeli” is intentional: I believe that there is a divide between diaspora Jews and Israelis when it comes to recent events in the Middle East, and that the former are unaware of the danger that awaits the state of Israel.

Although it is tiny, the state of Israel maintains military superiority over its neighbors. But there are limits to technology, and it’s unclear whether the Israeli military wouldn’t be overwhelmed. A nuclear strike by Iran on Israel won’t destroy it, but it would mean the deaths of Jews on a scale that hasn’t been seen since the ovens at Auschwitz cooled. Such a strike would signal to its neighbors that the time had come to rid the region of Israel once and for all. Israel would immediately be subject to armies from Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Hezballah in Lebanon and possibly even Turkey. These forces may not be inclined to attack Israel, but they would be driven to do so by their own peoples, whom they have fed a daily diet of anti-Semitic propaganda for decades. I would expect waves of lightly armed Arabs to immediately set out to take Israel with their bare hands if necessary. When God is on your side, you don’t need body armor or an assault rifle. Pointed sticks and mindless fanaticism will do.

The Israeli government would have tens of thousands of casualties from the nuclear strikes. The dead wouldn’t be the immediate problem; as with any disaster it’s the living and particularly the injured that require the most resources. Israel would also face the question of retaliation. Would it use its nuclear weapons against Iran? Would it intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of Tehranis? Would it use the nukes against the masses of Arabs attacking it from all sides?

These are questions only an Israeli or a diaspora Jew can decide. I honestly don’t know if the Jewish people are willing to kill on such a grand scale even after being attacked. Contrary to Arab propaganda, the Jewish people are not monsters. They are a deeply moral people who abhor killing even in their own defense. Golda Meir most famously exposed this morality when she said to Anwar Sadat, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we can never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

Imagine this scenario: Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are on fire. Reports are sporadic and contradictory that both have been hit with devastating nuclear blasts. Casualty reports begin in the thousands and are expected to climb. We will have incomplete information about these attacks, but the immediate assumption will be that Iran has launched nuclear strikes, either using missiles or warheads in shipping containers. The Western press will be more skeptical, expecting the Iranian regime to claim responsibility for the attack. But just as al Qaeda remained silent for almost a year after the 9-11 attacks, so Iran will be silent. al Qaeda’s silence was intentional. Zawahiri and Bin Laden knew that the media expected responsibility calls to follow, and failure to receive them would cause some to question who perpetrated the attacks. In the months after 9-11 even no less an august figure as Nelson Mandela said, “The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law.” Iran will lay low, and the “Arab Street” will develop the propaganda line that Israel nuked itself in order to justify the attack on Iran. News outlets antagonistic to the Jewish State such as La Monde, the Guardian, al Jazeera and the New York Times will question the motives of the Israeli response and immediately demand that Israel wait for an international investigation before retaliating.

How will the Israeli government respond? Will it retaliate against civilian populations just because it can? It could target military facilities in Iran or Syria, but its enemies aren’t stupid; they will have surrounded their key military assets and personnel with layers of civilian human shields. Just to kill a single soldier the Israelis will have to kill dozens if not scores of innocent men, women and children. Israel will have to swallow its morality and tear through the flesh of innocents in order to strike at the heart of the regime that has attacked it. Does it have the will to do this?

For all of its power, its vaunted military, Israel is a fragile nation. The coming months and years will determine once and for all how fragile it is.

The Council Has Spoken: November 25, 2011

Congratulations to this week’s winners.

Council: Joshuapundit–-Egypt Explodes

Noncouncil: American Thinker- Islam Was Not For Me

Full voting here.

A Must Have Upgrade: Climategate 2.0 Now Shipping

The politicization of science is inevitable, but it sucks when scientists delude themselves into thinking they can remain open minded in the process. A new trove of documents has been released that continues to shake the foundation of climate science. It’s a shame considering how physicists have remained open minded yet properly skeptical over the faster-than-light neutrinos.

Had the physicists fudged and biased the data to support their preconceived notions, the faster-than-light neutrinos would not have been discovered. Yet this is exactly what the climate scientists have done over the past years as they attempted to feed the demands of environmentalists and leftist politicians desperate for 100% incontrovertible proof to justify the bankruptcy of Western economies in the pursuit of a zero carbon future. Such perfection is anathema to science, which is why physicists are intrigued by the faster-than-light neutrino result. While it is very likely that this result will be overturned through the discovery of a flaw in the experimental apparatus, physicists have at least investigated the anomaly knowing that they will either make their experimental methods more bulletproof or make a discovery that overturns current theory. Either way they win.

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” muses one scientist. “They’ll kill us probably.”

No, we don’t have to. We just give you enough to rope to hang yourselves with. The scandal is proof that not all science is equal, and how the efforts to compare climate psuedo-science to hard sciences like physics and biology are doomed to failure.

UPDATE: Here is a timeline of the climategate story with regular updates.
New Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate. Not exactly Rock the Casbah, but given Joe Strummer’s libertarian edge, he might approve.

My View of the Penn State Scandal

I went to Catholic schools until college, and I remember the whispers about some of my Jesuit teachers in high school. Back then they were just rumors. Looking back I wonder how many of those rumors were true.

I think that when people are confronted by extraordinary events they will go out of their way to rationalize what they’ve seen. I can just imagine Assistant Coach McQueary walking finding Sandusky in the showers with a boy and thinking, “He can’t be doing that. The boy has to be older than that” But then thinking it over he realizes that yep, it’s what he thinks it is. He panics, then acts like a bureaucrat and follows the chain of command. It’s the easiest way to act, but that doesn’t make it right. Still, everyone’s happened upon something and not known how to respond. It could be something simple as a mother beating her child in the mall parking lot, or a college kid getting harassed by a large black dude on the street in Center City while walking to my car after work.

One of my rare acts of bravery was to get between this big black dude and a waif of a college kid. We went belly to belly, and using my deepest baritone I stared him in the eyes and shouted “Leave him alone.” The black guy was shocked that I had intervened, and the kid skittered away with his girlfriend. He backed off muttering obscenities at me, but I felt pretty good. I had remedied a similar situation that happened 20 years before where I had been hassled that way as a college kid. I’m proud of that moment, and McQueary could have been too had he stepped up and said, “Jerry, what the hell are you doing?” That’s all he had to do, and he would have been a hero – to his wife, and maybe even us. But not Penn State. Given the way Penn State reacted to the scandal, it’s possible he would have been fired.

What is truly damning is Penn State’s ignorance of Sandusky’s pattern of behavior. See this link for a timeline of events.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/sandusky.html?ref=joepaterno

Penn State acted just like the Catholic Church acted with the priest abuse scandal. They deserve the same fate: Hell and eternal damnation. Children can survive abuse, but it damages them. They will never reach their full potential. It’s almost like they’ve lost an arm, a leg or been blinded. They will recover, and it’s possible they will even thrive – but they will never reach the potential they were born with. To a pedophile the moment passes quickly and becomes just one of many; for the pedo’s victim, the moment lasts forever and crowds everything else out.

That’s what separates crimes against children from other crimes. You mug me at gunpoint, and I’ll eventually get over it; I just might not sleep for a few days afterward. I’m fully grown; my personality is established and it’s not going to change through one such event. But a child is still growing, and a single event like what Sandusky did in the shower can have life-altering consequences.

The Council Has Spoken: November 18, 2011

Congratulations to this week’s winners.

Council: The Noisy Room–-Book Burning – It’s All The Rage

Noncouncil: Gates Of Vienna- “An Iron Burka Has Descended Across the Continent”

Full voting here.

The Case For Romney

I don’t like Mitt Romney. I think he’s almost a walking cliche of the smooth talking, Country Club Republican. I think he’s about as authentic as a Coach bag bought on a New York City street corner kiosk, and as sincere as the voice one hears when calling a bank saying “Your call is important to us. Please hold.” I’ll even admit to being so shallow I don’t like his first name. Mitt. Newt. Reince. Why do people with weird first names gravitate to the GOP anyway?

I vehemently disagree with his signature health care reform and his position on anthropogenic global warming. I think governing the state of Massachusetts for one term doesn’t provide one with enough experience to govern the entire country for the same amount of time. While he may not be a RINO, he’s in a species that is a close relative. I have spoken to conservatives who will not vote for Romney no matter what. They hate the Republican establishment almost as much as they do the Democrats, and view Romney as the establishment candidate just as McCain was in 2008 and Bush in 2000. I know that as soon as the GOP settles on him as its standard bearer, the Democrats are going to go absolutely nuts on Romney, attacking everything from his “fat cat” background at Bain Capital to his cultish Mormon faith (how many Mormons are in the Democratic party besides Harry Reid?) I expect that we will soon see the nastiest presidential campaign that we have ever witnessed, and President Obama is going to turn Mitt Romney into a pinata.

But as much as I dislike Mitt Romney, I know that he will survive the onslaught and land just as many attacks on Obama as he takes. I have watched him carefully this election cycle and so far he has withstood the blows from his competitors far better than the other Republican candidates have. He almost seems to enjoy himself on stage while the other candidates including my personal favorite Herman Cain seem to hate every moment. He has kept his cool whereas other candidates looked like they were going to lose theirs (Perry, Santorum) or have a heart attack (Paul). While the fortunes of other candidates rise and fall (Cain, Bachmann, Perry) he maintains his, coming in a respectable second or close third. Romney has shown grace under pressure, something that Obama has not. And that is the first reason why I will support Mitt Romney if he is selected by the GOP.

Another reason I will support Romney is that while the conservative party base believes that an ideological conservative can win the presidency against Obama in 2012, I am less sanguine at the prospect. The country could be falling off a cliff in a car driven by Obama, and the mainstream media will blame the Republicans for cutting funding to states to provide stronger guard rails. The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, network news outlets, will play up every lie they can about Romney while hiding the truth about Obama. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will be making fun of Romney’s extremism every night. Bill Maher will have serious sounding discussions with other liberals about how the GOP had to appease their fascist base by selecting a far right candidate like Romney. Such statements sound absolutely silly to conservatives, but substitute the name of a more ideological pure candidate than Romney in those statements and see how they might sway an independent voter.

William F. Buckley Jr. formulated what political wonks on the Right like me refer to as the “Buckley Rule:” “Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.” Charles Krauthammer called the rule a “timeless rule of sober politics,” and wrote after the defeat of Christine O’Donnell in her quixotic Senate bid in Delaware in 2010:

This is no ordinary time. And this is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious. It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly. It has already done so with Obamacare and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court.

While there are limits on this rule, it applies to this election because like m0st presidential elections in recent years the election will be decided by the independents. So far independents prefer Romney over the other GOP contenders, and as long as that remains the case I believe Romney should stands the best chance of winning in November 2012. That leaves open the possibility for Herman Cain and Rick Perry to demonstrate appeal to independents, but it is likely that they are so focused on the primaries that they are steering their campaigns hard to the Right, and hoping that they will be able to moderate their campaigns enough to appeal to the independents later. The problem with this strategy is that it not only allows the Obama camp to paint the candidate as extremist by recycling his or her words from the primaries, the move towards the center will also strike independents as a blatant lie. Independents aren’t idiots no matter how much conservatives and even some liberals think they are. If they don’t think the later moves towards the center are genuine they will not vote for the GOP candidate.

Any conservative who believes that Romney will be Obama-lite hasn’t been paying attention for the last three years. This is the worst administration since Jimmy Carter’s. It is a complete disaster that goes beyond it being a Democratic administration and points to the personality of Obama himself. Our nation has suffered under his narcissism, his slavish devotion to extreme leftist ideals, and his shameful moral equivalence that has damaged our allies and emboldened our foes. The double-speak of this administration would have stunned Orwell. A Nobel Prize winning president starting wars. An administration pledged to transparency opaque as soon as it grasps the levers of power. An administration committed to reforming corruption corrupt beyond all redemption. Romney has the capacity for such treachery?

If Cain, Perry or any of the other candidates can improve their electability with independents, then we can forget Romney. But we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that electing a liberal Republican is just as bad as re-electing a liberal Democrat. This will be difficult because true conservatives abhor the guy and all he stands for.

But the question these conservatives must ask is: Are you willing to sacrifice America’s future to purge the GOP? I have been reading post after post from the right attacking Romney, and some seem to relish punishing the Republican party by sitting out the election if Romney is nominated or worse, running a 3rd party candidate. I sympathize with their frustration with the GOP leadership in Washington and how they have lost site of the party’s principles of small, fiscally responsible federal government. But sitting out 2012 will split the party just as surely as backing a 3rd party conservative candidate. That will kill the modern Republican party.

Republicans must win in 2012 because there is too much at stake. As Krauthammer mentions, Obamacare needs to be gutted and real bi-partisan health care reform enacted. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court must be given the opportunity to retire without fear that their legacy on the bench will be undermined by their liberal replacements. Deficits must be tamed humanely, regulations must be trimmed intelligently, and military action used sparingly. All this can be done with Romney in office, but not Obama.

But the damage will go further than that. Dividing the party will weaken it for a decade or possibly longer. During that time the Democrats will run amok. They have successfully purged their party of most blue dogs through the primary process and retirement, making the party as leftist as it has ever been. Without internal checks by conservative Democrats, they will enact policies that all Republican agree they despise. They will shove “green energy” down the throats of Americans while making the possibility of energy independence a distant dream by killing pipelines. They will bloat the federal government with even more bureaucrats. They will strangle American small businesses with regulations. They will run deficits that will make our currency as worthless as Weimar Germany’s. They will do to America what they have done to California and Detroit. But hey, at least we’ll have a truly conservative party – 100% Ideologically pure – just one that doesn’t have any power in a country that no one wants to live in anymore.

Conservatives have already begun to reform the GOP. The effort began with the Tea Party infusion in 2010 that sent scores of conservatives to Congress. Taking back the GOP can be done just as the Left took over the Democratic party, but it won’t be done overnight. It takes time. Conservative primary challengers to establishment RINOs will change the party even more effectively without sacrificing America’s future to the Far Left.

But in 2012 if Romney is our guy, then he’s our guy. If he can beat Obama we’ll at least have a seat at the table. If he doesn’t, then we can gut the party like a trout afterward and prepare for 2016.

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson calls Romney the Castor Oil Candidate and writes:

To beat an ever-more-vulnerable Obama, Republicans keep coming back to someone who resembles a Romney, with strengths in just those areas where Obama is so demonstrably weak: prior executive experience as a governor, success in and intimacy with the private sector, a past fully vetted, and an unambiguous belief in the exceptional history and future of the United States.

In short, if Republicans are happy in theory that Mitt Romney could probably beat Obama, they seem just as unhappy in fact that first they have to nominate him.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it’s time to circle the wagons around Romney and get on with removing Obama from office. Yes we know that we registered Republicans aren’t nominating Ronald Reagan as Obama’s challenger, but for better or worse Romney gives us our best shot at taking the White House. Hanson is right: he is castor oil, but sometimes grandma knows best and it’s the cure we need.

The Council Has Spoken: November 11, 2011

Congratulations to this week’s winners.

Council: Joshuapundit–-War Drums On Iran?

Noncouncil: Raymond Ibrahim- Muslim Prayers Of Hate

Full voting here.

CNBC Republican Debate Recap

Tonight’s debate on CNBC required me to reprogram my satellite TV receiver to pick up the station which I never watch – for good reason judging by the pissy moderators and the annoying tickertape that constantly rolled across the screen (except during commercials). Which begs the question: does anyone actually read those things? If I want to know how a stock is doing I either track it in a trading program that updates up-to-the-minute or I click on a stock symbol. Watching that tape scroll across the bottom filled with tweets – another technology I have issues with – was incredibly distracting.

Anyhow the debate will go down in history for the Rick Perry gaffe where he forgets the third federal department he’d cut. It’s a brutal moment; Perry reminded me of a wildebeest caught in the jaws of a Nile crocodile, mooing and wildly flapping its legs. Probably taking pity on him, a commentator threw him a bone later and asked him the same question again, giving him the opportunity to recall the third agency he’d cut: the Department of Energy.

I can relate to Rick Perry; I often come across as awkward and uncomfortable in public. Perry’s demeanor is not even. He swings from making jokes to dead seriousness too quickly, making really jerking motions with his head and overall body language the whole time. He just looks very uncomfortable in his own skin, and that just won’t do for a modern politician. As for his ideas, I think the GOP faithful was expecting more from him – obviously given his collapse in the polls. I think it may be time for him to cut his losses, head back to Texas. In four years (or eight) he might have the role down for a run.

Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman also need to go. They are in single digits and aren’t moving in the polls. They are done. They have given it their best shots, but it’s time for the Republicans to look at the top tier.

I like Herman Cain and believe he’s been smeared unfairly, but I also think his response has shown poor judgement on his part. I’m also concerned about his lack of deep understanding of the issues. His debate answers are always a bit too high-level, and the 9-9-9 has become a bit of a joke. The wife watched a little and asked me if I thought he’d recover from this scandal. I said that it was doubtful, but I have been wrong about Cain before. I expected him to quit in early September just before his meteoric rise in the polls.

There were no foreign policy questions tonight so Ron Paul came off as saner than usual. I noticed one tweet that called Paul a genius but then lamented that his foreign policy ideas were horrible. I’d have to agree.

I could sit and listen to Newt Gingrich for hours. He’s witty and extremely intelligent with a solid command of history. I just don’t know if that’s enough to beat President Obama.

Then there’s Romney. He’s so careful in his answers: no ditching of the tax code or dismantling of federal agencies. He’s definitely the least “radical” conservative of the current bunch. And he’s also the most relaxed on stage almost to the point that he appears to be enjoying himself.

What does this mean? Probably not much. The early primaries next year will do what these debates have not: winnowed the field. Until then consider the debates the GOP body electorate navel gazing.

Everything Old Is Old Again

My good friend Promethean Antagonist posts an excellent Mark Steyn quote:


[...“]It’s the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It’s more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don’t mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al, but also, say, the photograph in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old “unemployed cosmetologist” with remarkably uncosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it’s London, 1977, and she’s killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that’s three-and-a-half decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America’s revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can’t even invent their own hideous fashion statements? [...“]

The other day I was listening to the local rock station while taking the Kid to school. It played some hit by some band that sounds exactly like some other band, then played Iron Man by Black Sabbath. I realized that when I was my kid’s age, it would have been the equivalent of playing a hit from 1980 followed by one from 1940. If Rock & Roll isn’t dead, then it’s on hospice.

The OWS protesters are “playing protester” and consciously mining previous movements because they don’t have any original ideas (or styles) of their own. Why? Because they don’t know what they are protesting about. They don’t have unjust laws and Bull Connor splitting their skulls the way Civil Rights protesters had. They don’t have the prospect of being drafted and returning home in a body bag the way the anti-war Vietnam protesters had (although technically, most of the protesters had deferments and those that actually could be drafted supported the war – so this might be a stretch). And honestly, “Give us free stuff so we can sit around playing with ourselves” doesn’t really make for good slogan or protest fodder.

But it sounds like the OWS is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions. That happens in experiments in anarchism, and is usually replaced by authoritarianism (see Paris Commune 1848).

The Council Has Spoken: November 4, 2011

Congratulations to this week’s winners.

Council: Joshuapundit–-President Obama’s Latest Horror – A Trillion Dollar Timebomb For America’s Economy

Noncouncil: Gates Of Vienna- Slavery And Jihad

Full voting here.

The GOP Should Fight to Win

I am a big Condi Rice fan and have been since she was nominated as Secretary of State by George W. Bush. But I completely disagree with her admonishment of Herman Cain for playing the race card. As an ex-liberal I’m always amazed at how gentle conservatives can be in politics. It’s like they insist on following Marquis of Queensberry rules of boxing in a street fight. They’re getting into their best boxer stance yelling “Put up your dukes,” as their opponent grabs a 2×4 and slams it upside their head. It’s all rather naive really.

Liberals understand better than conservatives that the only thing that matters in a political fight is to win it. Conservatives fret that people will see them as just as bad as their adversaries, and so try to do their best to keep to the moral high ground even at the expense of their position in battle. Liberals intuitively understand that the general public doesn’t like street fights, but they are too lazy to try to understand an argument enough to blame one party over the other and reward conservatives for sticking to their principles. Instead the public will criticize both adversaries equally, just as the public equates the non-violence protest of the Tea Party with the violence of the Occupy Wall St. movement, so the liberal has nothing to lose by doing anything it takes to win the argument. The moral equivalence between the two groups is so insidious that even conservatives have begun to mention the Occupy movement in the same breath as the Tea Party, even as thousands of Occupy protesters are arrested and sent to jail versus zero Tea Partiers.

Republicans have been unfairly bludgeoned by the race card for decades. People tend to forget that it was the Democrats who blocked Civil Rights legislation at every step of the way in the mid-20th century. In fact if it wasn’t for Republicans, President Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation would have never made it through either the House or Senate against the opposition from his own party, and it was up to Republican President Richard Nixon to insure his reforms weren’t rolled back by racist Democrats like Alabama Governor George Wallace. But the Democrats have done a thorough job of whitewashing American history and painting everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King jr as Democrats (they were Republicans) while making Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy as Civil Rights pioneers (Truman signed an edict to desegregate the military, but Eisenhower was the one who actually accomplished the feat. As for JFK, he voted against the Civil Rights act in 1957, 3 years before he won the presidency).

After being defeated on the Civil Rights issue in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the Democrats saw the opportunity to add African-Americans to their long-used strategy of patronizing minorities in exchange for votes in their city machines. So they added African-Americans to their roster of Italians, Puerto Ricans and Irish, and doled out welfare in exchange for votes. It was an uncomfortable fit because these ethnic groups weren’t known for their racial tolerance at the time, and many either switched parties or became independent voters. It was at this time that Democrats began demonizing Republicans as racists, made easier by the GOP’s refusal to confront the Democrat’s hypocrisy head-on at the time, and within a generation the label began to stick.  By the 1980’s there were few African-Americans left in the GOP, and Americans had forgotten the Democratic Party’s racism of only two decades before.

But the switch was tactical and didn’t reflect any change of values. The Democratic party remains racist even today. It’s not the color of the skin of its leadership, who with the notable exception of the President are all white – and Obama’s skin might be black but he is a product of liberal white culture, it’s the unspoken racism of keeping African-Americans chained to government programs and sending the dogs after any that leave the plantation by questioning liberal orthodoxy like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain. It’s the racism of low expectations  that keep African-Americans from developing a sense of self-worth that comes from succeeding on one’s own.

It’s time the GOP drops its obsession with the moral high ground and fights just as dirty as its opponent. Republicans must accept that they will be accused of fighting dirty just as the Tea Party has been accused as being just as “bad” as OWS even while no one was ever raped at a Tea Party rally. The moral equivalence argument will be made regardless, so Republicans should grab any and every weapon they can use against their opponents to win. People will be disgusted with politics until they begin to actually penalize one side for fighting dirty by shifting their votes to another that adheres to a higher moral standard. People haven’t done this, nor do I expect them to do it anytime soon. Therefore the Republicans should use each and every opportunity to play the race card against Democrats. Sorry Condi!

UPDATE: Dr. Helen Smith agrees:

Life isn’t a nostalgic TV show or fiction book. The good guy doesn’t always win just because you want him to. And though you can feel noble about being the honorable one, honor is no substitute for the loss of freedom, increased government regulation, and economic woes that our country will suffer if the left wins on election day.