Category: Current Affairs

Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America

Mark Crispin Miller The following piece was written on 12 April 2006.  I repost it, slightly emended, because events since then have led me to believe that the grounds for pessimism are even stronger now than they were before.  It is becoming increasingly clear that conservatives and liberals/leftists live on 'different planets.'  And it is becoming increasingly clear which planet bears the name 'Reality.'  A return to federalism may help mitigate tensions, as I suggest here.  But that is not likely to happen.

………………………….

A few nights ago on C-Span I listened to a talk by Mark Crispin Miller given at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). His theme was that of a book he had authored alleging that the 2004 election was stolen by the Republicans and how democracy is dead in the USA. Not having read Crispin's book, I cannot comment on it. But I will offer a few remarks on his talk.

Miller, a tenured professor at New York University, is obviously intelligent and highly articulate and entertaining to listen to, his mannerisms and delivery reminiscent of Woody Allen. He takes himself to be a defender of the values of the Enlightenment. But then so do I. So here is the beginning of a 'disconnect.' From my point of view, Miller is an extremist motivated by the standard Leftist fear of, and hostility toward, religion. (Miller's NYU colleague, Thomas Nagel, owns up to his fear of religion, as I document here.) Miller's hostility was betrayed a dozen or so times during his speech by mocking turns of phrase. But of course he doesn't see himself as an extremist but as a sober defender of values he feels are threatened by Christian Reconstructionism, also know as  Dominion Theology.

Continue reading “Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America”

Yet More Evidence of a Lack of Common Sense Among Democrats

It is hard to believe, but then again, given how preternaturally stupid and politically correct Dems are, maybe it is not so hard to believe:  a significant number of these jokers oppose photo ID when it comes to applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits!  Here is John Fund, Making the World Safe for Medicaid Fraud:

Americans expect to show a photo ID when they board a plane, enter many office buildings, cash a check or even rent a video — but rarely in voting or applying for government benefits such as Medicaid. Many Democrats seem to view asking citizens for proof of identity as an invasion of privacy — though what's really being protected is the right to commit identity fraud.

Exhibit A is Tuesday's 13 to 10 party-line vote in the Senate Finance Committee rejecting a proposal to require that immigrants prove their identity when signing up for federal health care programs. [. . .]

This shows that the Dems are not serious about health care reform.  If they were serious they would begin by solving pressing and solvable problems such as the fraud and waste in existing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.  But they refuse to take the simplest steps toward this end.

Misplaced Moral Enthusiasm and Mel Gibson

The L. A. Times reports that Mel Gibson's 2006 drunk driving conviction has been expunged.  Here is what I wrote about the case at the time (1 August 2006): 

What's worse: Driving while legally drunk at 87 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone, or making stupid anti-Semitic remarks? The former, obviously. And yet a big stink is being made about Gibson's drunken rant. I call this misplaced moral enthusiasm. Calling a Jew a bad name won't kill him, but running him over in your speeding 2006 Lexus LS 430 will.

On the one hand, offensive words that no reasonable person could take seriously; on the other hand, a deed that could get people killed. Here is what Gibson said: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and, addressing the arresting officer, "Are you a Jew?"

Now compare Gibson with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who repeatedly has called for the destruction of the State of Israel. Ahmadinejad's is speech that incites unspeakable violence, unlike Gibson's drunken rant which is no threat to anyone. So let's forget about Gibson, and concentrate on real threats.

The Bigger the Government, the More to Fight Over

Taking a page from Prager, I've already noted that big government makes for small citizens.  Let us also note that government expansion exacerbates political divisions and sets citizen against citizen. 

Suppose we get to the point where Washington bureaucrats  dictate what types of cars and trucks will be manufactured.  Then you can be sure that there will be more lobbying, more corruption and the buying of votes, more fighting.    Or suppose the czars of Obamacare begin dictating how many cardiologists we need, how many gastroenterologists, etc.  Do you think medical students, physicians, and their patients will take that lying down?  Hell no, they will organize and fight and protest and lobby.  They will be justified in doing so because of the constitutionally protected right to a redress of grievances.

Do you like contention and division?  Then support bigger government.  We are coming apart as a nation as Patrick J. Buchanan documents here.   The rifts are deep and nasty.  Polarization and demonization of the opponent are the order of the day.  Do you want more of this?  Then give government more say in your life.  Do you want less?  Then support limited government and federalism.

Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that the central and constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs.  Federalism is implied by the Tenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Federalism would make for less contention, because people who love high taxes and liberal schemes could head for the People's Republic of Taxachusetts or the Left coast state of Californication,  while the  conservatively inclined who support gun rights and capital punishment could gravitate toward states like Texas.

The fact of the matter is that we do not agree on a large number of divisive, passion-inspiring issues (abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, wealth redistribution . . .) and we will never agree on them.  These are not merely 'academic' issues since they directly affect the lives and livelihoods and liberties of people.  And they are not easily resolved because they are rooted deep in fundamental worldview differences.  When you violate a man's liberty, or mock his moral sense, or threaten to destroy his way of life, you are spoiling for a fight and you will get it. 

Recognizing these facts, we must ask ourselves: How can we keep from tearing each other apart literally or figuratively?  I am floating the suggestion that federalism and severe limitations on the reach of the central government are what we need.  Example:  Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned and the question of the legality of abortion is returned to the states.  Some states will make it legal, others illegal.  This would be a modest step in the direction of mitigating the tensions between the warring camps.  If abortion is a question for the states, then no federal monies could be allocated to the support of abortion.  People who want to live in abortion states can move there; people who don't can move to states in which abortion is illegal.

A. C. Grayling on the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape Case

I find myself in complete agreement with Professor Grayling's commentary on the Polanski case.  Read it carefully; he makes several important points.  What is astonishing to me, however, is how this man can be so sane and judicious on this topic, and yet such a blithering gasbag of a lunatic when it comes to religion, as I document  here.  There is something I call topical insanity, and Grayling on religion is an example of it. Sometimes otherwise sane people simply 'lose it' when it comes to certain topics. 

Is Glenn Beck Good for Conservatism?

Glenn Beck is doing good work and he is effective.  Van Jones is out and ACORN has been defunded.  But Beck can exaggerate and misrespresent as in his attack on Cass Sunstein.  So is he a liability to the conservative cause as, I have maintained, Ann Coulter is?  David Frum and David Horowitz discuss the question here.  Excerpts from Horowitz directed at Frum:

. . . there are conservatives – you are one, David Brooks is another — who think that if everyone on our team only behaved better, there would be no targets for the neo-Stalinist left to attack. Not a chance. If they were able to demonize George Bush as a liar, a murderer, an idiot, and a religious nut they can do that to anyone. So-called liberals have shown themselves to be shameless, unprincipled, bigoted, intolerant and determined to personally destroy any conservative whom they consider to be politically effective and therefore dangerous to their agendas. That’s where we really differ. If you understood this or believed it, you would not attack a Glenn Beck in the scorched-earth manner in which you did.  

[. . .]

In fact, this is an exemplary case of exactly what I think is wrong with the conservative movement in contrast to what you think. Franken is now a U.S. Senator in part because conservatives of whom you are typical want to conduct politics by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when the other side is in it as war in which destruction of the enemy is the game. Franken calls us evil. You call him mistaken (and unfunny). And you want other conservatives to do the same. The more conservatives who follow your advice the more we will lose. Personally, I am thrilled with what is happening now in the conservative movement – our aggressive media like Fox and talk radio, the emergence of enraged conservative masses – the tea baggers – as leftist half-wits like to dismiss them. It is this energized, unapologetic, in-your-face (but also civilized and intelligent) conservative base on whom the future not only of the movement but the country depends.

Ronald Radosh, another red diaper baby who saw the light — I highly recommend his Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left –  weighs in here. 

Does He Lie?

A fine piece by Charles Krauthammer.  Excerpt:

And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

Universal Health Care

I'm for universal health care: I want everyone to have health care. But the issue is not whether it would be good for all to have adequate health care, the issue is how to approach this goal. I can't see that increasing government involvement in health care delivery is the way to go.  We need less government inefficiency and more market discipline.  That will bring prices down while safeguarding liberty, a value liberals, despite their name, seem insufficiently appreciative of.  The so-called 'public option' will lead to no option: you will have no option except to use the government plan because private insurers will most of them have been  driven out of business.  And so only the superrich will get the best care.  The phrase 'public option' is a piece of Orwellian bullshit.  Descriptive accuracy favors 'government takeover health plan' or something like that.

Continue reading “Universal Health Care”

Van Jones Is Out!

And good riddance to him.  But no thanks to the miserable MSM who have failed to exercise due diligence in ferreting out this weasel.  (Nice piece of invective, eh?  'Ferreting out a weasel.' It just occurred to me.)  Michelle Malkin covers the story.  Follow her links.  Ron Radosh, who as a red diaper baby knows a thing or two about commies and their ways, weighs in here.

The Gun-Totin’ Obama Protester Was Black!

If a black man exercises his Second Amendment rights, is he really black?  For liberals, the answer, apparently, is in the negative.  For them, apparently, the only real black is a liberal black.  Take a gander at this video clip.  You will see an Obama protester with a semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, a pistol on his hip, and an ammo clip in his pocket.   But the shot has been edited so that we cannot see that he is black.  And you liberals have the chutzpah to tell me that the MSM does not tilt to the Left?  To depict the man's color  would not fit in with the leftist party line that opposition to Obama's policies has its origin in racism.

In this clip you can see that the man is indeed black.

Here are two points that need to be made again and again in opposition to the willful moral and intellectual obtuseness of liberals and leftists.

1. Dissent is not hate.  To dissent from a person's ideas and policies is not to hate the person.

2. As a corollary to #1, to dissent from the ideas and policies of a black man is not to hate the man. A fortiori, it is not to hate the man because he is black.