Christian Right Does Direct Democracy

Did you know that abortion is the biggest item in “protest” activity? Yep. Wins by a mile.

In a review of a book on the Christian Right The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right by Jon Wright, Richard John Neuhaus notes how it is the Christian Right that has taken up the challenge for direct democracy that the SDS made in their Port Huron Statement in the Sixties.

“[S]ome 45 percent of respondents in the Citizens Participation Survey who reported participating in a national protest did so because of abortion. What is more, nearly three quarters of all abortion-issue protesters are pro-life, an unsurprising fact given that the pro-life movement is challenging rather than defending the current policy regime. Meanwhile, all other social issues, including pornography, gay rights, school prayer, and sex education, account for only 3 percent of all national protest activity.”

And you thought that the hottest issue right now was gay marriage.

Want to have some other media stereotypes challenged? It turns out that the pro-life movement is not really a movement of stay-at-home mothers against professional women.

[A] striking percentage of pro-life women are university educated, and many have given up professional careers to do pro-life work full-time.... “The pro-life movement,” he writes, “is actually quite diverse, and abortion politics more generally does not [as some claim] pit working-class Catholic housewives against professional, career-oriented women.”

In my view the rise of pro-life activism parallels the rise of environmentalism. Two hundred years ago, most people were fighting to make a bare existence on the land and to get a couple of children out of the nest. They didn’t have time for exquisite ideas about the sanctity of life and saving the planet.

But as soon as people moved to the city they started to have romantic ideas about Nature and the countryside. And as soon as women got free of the danger of childbirth and the heartbreak of infant deaths they started to develop romantic ideas about the delights of motherhood.

So it looks like we will have a sensible balance in the future. Liberals will champion the romantic view of Nature and conservatives will champion the romantic view of childbearing.

Naomi Klein's Latest Lefty Screed

Naomi Klein is a lefty journalist and author, daughter of anti-war Sixties parents that went to Canada during the Vietnam War.

In her No Logo, she railed against the Nineties economy. As I wrote for Liberty:

She is shocked by the megabrands, the brand bombers, and the category killers of the modern consumer society. For in the blaring public space of the brands there is No Space for artists and creativity, in the ravenous appetite of the Wal-Marts and Starbucks there is No Choice for consumers, in the new world of temporary jobs and contract workers there are No Jobs for workers.

It was, simply, left-wing rubbish. Yes indeed, so few were the jobs that half of Mexico came north to work at jobs that didn’t exist.

But now Klein is back with another left-wing tract. This time it’s called The Shock Doctrine and it argues that since people recoil from capitalism the capitalists have to trick the voters and consumers into accepting capitalism by staging crises and “shocks.”

That was before Democratic staffer Rahm Emanuel said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Exhibit A for Klein is—wait for it—Milton Friedman! Yes, he’s the trickster that got August Pinochet to liberalize Chile with his “Chicago boys.” (Yes. We get all the favorite lefty moments, like Chile, Tienanmien Square and so forth marshaled to show that the capitalists up and tricked us when we were feeling vulnerable.)

Johann Norberg in Reason does a good job of exposing the thinness of Klein’s argument. For instance, Klein writes that Friedman acted as “advisor to the Chilean dictator.”

In fact, Friedman never worked as an adviser to, and never accepted a penny from, the Chilean regime. He even turned down two honorary degrees from Chilean universities that received government funding, because he did not want to be seen as endorsing a dictatorship he considered "terrible" and "despicable." He did spend six days in Chile in March 1975 to give public lectures, at the invitation of a private foundation. When he was there he met with Pinochet for about 45 minutes and wrote him a letter afterward, arguing for a plan to end hyperinflation and liberalize the economy. He gave the same kind of advice to communist dictatorships as well, including the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia.

But I suppose it doesn’t matter. Klein has her audience, and they’ll like what she says.

When you look at the shoddy stuff that the left puts out, you wonder: how long can this go on? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot longer than you think.

And get your facts straight, Naomi. Milton Friedman was about as upfront and honest a guy as ever lived. To suggest that he ever proposed anything underhanded or tricksy is just fantasy. Or hate speech.

The Universe of Hope

If you want real Hope and Change, don’t expect it from a politician. You are committing a category error. Everyone agrees that soldiers and politicians are the fighters, businessmen and workers are the workers, and teachers, clerics, and writers are the prayers. It’s the job of the teachers and clerics in the moral/cultural sector to be in charge of the hoping.

So if you want to ponder the question of hope, the Christmas (or Hannukah, or Divali) festival is a good one to anchor your thoughts.

All these mid-winter festivals are about light or about new-borns. Light is hope, for it lets you see, and birth is hope because every new-born is a reckless expression of hope.

In fact, life is hope. Every living thing, from an irritable amoeba to a little plant struggling in the desert; from a bird flying around on a snowy day looking for food to a young human adolescent yearning to be grown up and free, every living thing is an impersonation of hope. Where there is life, there is hope, and where there is hope there is life.

But hope is not a dream. You cannot just sit back in a reverie and hope. That isn’t life. That’s just deliquescing. Real hope is a dream put into action. It is the young love of a human couple translated into marriage and children. It is the dream of creativity translated into step-by-step actions towards a goal.

And, of course, real hope often involves sacrifice. Maybe it is the sacrifice of the parent for the welfare of the child. Maybe it is the sacrifice of the soldier who dies that others may live. Maybe it is the impossible sacrifice of Christianity: God sacrifices his Son so humans don’t have to sacrifice theirs in expiation of their sins.

What is Hope? All you can do is have faith in Hope. Probably it will all come clear when Pope Benedict XVI issues his third encyclical, which should be due a year from now. Remember? The first was issued on December 25, 2005 and called God is Love. The second was issued on November 30, 2007 and called Saved by Hope. The third one? Something about Faith, I shouldn’t wonder, although, as the Holy Father writes, Hope and Faith are pretty much one and the same thing. But then you could say that Hope and Love are pretty much one and the same.

Faith, Hope, Love. There’s something about all three. Just thinking about them fills you with Faith, Hope and Love. Try it for yourself.

Merry Christmas from all of us at Road to the Middle Class.

NYT: Bush to Blame for Mortgage Meltdown!

Let’s say it up front. President Bush was not early enough or firm enough in calling a halt to the housing boom/bubble. For some years, it is clear, Bush just kept on the policy of mortgage-at-any-cost (especially to minorities) which has been the policy of the US government for decades.

But you’d have to have your head in a liberal bell jar to write a news story about the housing crisis and not mention “Community Reinvestment Act.” You’d have to try really hard not to mention the word “Dodd.” You’d have to try really hard not to mention the bullying of the banks by federal housing officials.

But The New York Times reporters Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton managed it.

They introduce Franklin Raines as a helpless victim of Bush’s policies:

[Raines, once] Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. "They loved us," he said.

But the reporters don’t mention the congressional hearings in 2004 when Republicans were accused of being racists for criticizing the performance of Raines at Fannie Mae.

“It was not until 2003,” the Times complains, “when Freddie became embroiled in an accounting scandal, that the White House took on the companies in earnest.”

Well Geewillikins, reporters and reporterettes, if the White House had succeeded in reining in Fannie and Freddie back in 2003, we would all be home free.

But they didn’t. They couldn’t. And the reason is Democrats in Congress like Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). And the reason is the law: the Community Reinvestment Act that more or less forced banks to loan money to poor credit risks.

There’s a good side and a bad side to this sand-box journalism and blatant bias. The good side is that these journalists probably really don’t know what they are talking about. That means that New York Times readers won’t either. As political partisans, we gotta love that.

But the bad side is that the educated elite of the nation—let alone the ordinary Americans who get their news from the educated elite—still don’t have a clue, and may never have a clue about what hit us.

If you can’t get off the Democratic talking points of greedy banks and lax “de-regulation” then you haven’t learned the lesson. And that means that ordinary Americans are going to be forced to go through the whole thing again.

But who cares, as long as the good guys get reelected?

Yes. We are conservatives, and we do care.

The Corruption and the Temptation

Up until the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the Democratic Party was split between the “honest graft” wing and the squeaky clean liberal or progressive wing. (Let’s leave the Southern Democratic Party out of this.)

Liberals were embarrassed by the corrupt city machines, and the ward heelers were contemptuous of the egg-head liberals who were full of ideas but couldn’t get anyone to the polls.

Of course, both of these tendencies are bad, very bad. The routine corruption of city machines was a continuation by other means of the rule of the “eternal gang of ruthless men,” the politics of piracy and plunder.

But the liberal approach to politics, if anything, is even worse. Liberals are determined to do good, and that’s a good thing. But they want to do good on someone else’s dime. They want to force other people to fund their programs of social welfare. It’s a matter of compassion, they tell us.

Earth to liberals. Compassion is where you give your money to poor people. Compulsion is where you give other peoples’ tax money to poor people.

There was once a famous person who had the liberal temptation.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

The great political achievement of President Roosevelt was to submit to temptation, to turn the Democratic Party from a coalition of city patronage machines and ideological liberals into a single national political patronage machine, led and run by liberals, focused on using political power to do good.

But he also started the descent into corruption. And anyone can see that in full operation as the Obama administration takes office. It’s not about Hope and Change. It’s just about getting back the levers of political power back from the Republican yahoos.

The great world historical achievement of liberals is this. They took a federal government that was spending about three percent of GDP and cranked it up to 20 percent.

What do liberals spend all that money on? Well, that’s what usgovernmentspending.com is for. Let’s take a look.

United States Federal
State and Local Government Spending

Fiscal Year 2009

Amounts in $ billion



Pensions: $891.1

Health Care: $958.2

Education: $873.7

Defense: $806.1

Welfare: $467.7

Protection: $325.0

Transportation: $247.8

General Government: $193.3

Other Spending: $403.6

Interest: $361.7

Balance: $24.3

Total Spending: $5,552.4

Government, especially national government, is there to defend first of all against enemies foreign and domestic. You don’t see a lot of that going on in the top spending categories. Why is that?

The reason is pretty simple. Liberals are running, in the Democratic Party, a political operation. It is not particularly interested in defense. It is interested in its left-wing government programs and its raw political patronage.

The tragedy is that the people most benefitting from all these trillions are well-born educated liberals. The people most hurt are the program beneficiaries, anesthetized by the liberal mess of pottage, who aren’t getting to learn the skills and the trust culture of the city. They aren’t moving up into the self-reliant middle class. And that is a shame. It is more than a shame. It is a crime.

Some day the American people are going to ask conservatives to reform this corrupt regime of patronage and ideological cant.

Until then, conservatives must develop and sharpen their indictment of this cruel, corrupt, and unjust regime.

Music Really Is the Food of Love

Count Orsino in Twelfth Night was one of the most pompous lovers ever. What did the plucky Viola see in him?

But he knew the importance of music:

If music be the food of love, play on;

Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,

The appetite may sicken, and so die.

There you have the two themes of sex. Music and death.

Being holiday season and all, the London Economist has a long and learned disquisition on the question of music. Is it related to sex or survival, they wonder?

No contest. It’s sex. The research proves it.

One reason for believing this is that musical productivity... seems to match the course of an individual’s reproductive life. In particular, Dr Miller studied jazz musicians. He found that their output rises rapidly after puberty, reaches its peak during young-adulthood, and then declines with age and the demands of parenthood.

Interesting isn’t it, how music has degenerated in the last half century from the romantic ballad into the drumbeat pulse of sex.

Music tracks the sexually active years. But cooking does not.

But uniquely human activities associated with survival—cooking, say—do not show this pattern. People continue to cook at about the same rate from the moment that they have mastered the art until the moment they die or are too decrepit to continue.

The question is: are singers the sexiest people alive, more so even than ath-e-letes? You’d think so. Think Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix. And that goes for the more sedate world of opera, with Maria Callas, Luciano Pavarotti (sexy despite his size), and Plácido Domingo.

The other thing that makes you sexy is dancing ability. That’s why they call Tango “vertical sex.”

The Kennedys Ain't What They Used To Be

Nobody could say that the Kennedy political machine didn’t practice nepotism. Old Joe Kennedy would probably have made Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL) look like a piker if we’d known about his shenanigans. (Why do you think we use that Irish word to communicate the notion of dodgy political footwork?)

But at least Jack Kennedy actually ran and won races for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And at least Ted Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1962.

But now we have the latest Kennedy scion, Caroline Kennedy Schossberg, campaigning for an appointment to the US Senate.

How about the idea that this political novice should actually run for a political office before she works the system to get into the Senate by the back door?

Otherwise, who can complain about Sarah Palin, a woman without political connections, who has actually won three different political offices in open elections? Indeed, she won the governorship by running against the Republican political machine in Alaska.

Well, never mind. Democrats are Democrats, and Republicans are different, honey.

As the Brits used to say. Not really out of the top drawer, old chap.

Pushing on a String

At this stage of the business cycle pundits usually talk about the Fed pushing on a string. They mean that the Fed can’t actually make people start to borrow. All the Fed can do is print money and hope that economic activity starts to revive.

The usual response is that, of course, economic activity will revive; it always does. But until it does, who knows how long it will be before greed takes over from fear.

The worry is that the Fed is reaching the zone of “quantitative easing.” That was what the Bank of Japan used to do during the lost decade of the Japanese economy, after its big real estate boom left many of its banks insolvent and unwilling to lend.

Well, we solved that problem, didn’t we? We bailed out the banks by recapitalizing them. But do we know that the banks are out of the wood? After all, the banks depend on the quality of their assets, and that depends, in many cases, on the value of commercial and residential mortgages, and they depend on housing prices.

The Fed is working on that, according to the Wall Street Journal, and its action is already leading to a reduction in mortgage rates which will help to advance a revival in real-estate prices. But what’s really needed is not an increase in liquidity, but an increase in confidence.

Meanwhile, according to Larry Kudlow, the Obama team is planning a massive purchase of mortgage paper.

Team Obama is also drawing up plans for a massive purchase of mortgages in order to get long-term borrowing rates down to 4.5 percent — a full percentage-point drop.

But is that the prescription for recovery? What nobody seems to be suggesting is a tax rate cut, worries Kudlow.

But I still believe the best economic stimulus would be a move to cut tax rates across-the-board for individuals and businesses. No matter how much money the Fed prints, or how many roads or mortgages Uncle Sam buys, none of it creates new incentives for private enterprise, risk-taking, and investment.

Yes. It took Bush two years to get Congress to agree to tax rate cuts. And it looks like the same could happen with the firm of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Were Talent-spotters Right on Obama?

Federal Appeal Court Judge and über-liberal Abner Mikva was an early patron of President-elect Obama, according to Tom Hundley. He “was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.”

"I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him," explains Mikva. "It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from."

That’s cool, because there’s a national problem right in the cross-hairs of the national radar that needs just that sort of sensitive, sympathetic personality. It’s the Big Three auto mess. Michael Barone rather neatly describes how the mess came to be.

It all started with Taylorism, after the book on “the one best way” by Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor’s brilliant idea was to measure worker productivity with time and motion studies and implement the one best way as a mandatory procedure for all workers.

Only one problem, of course. It treats workers like machines rather than people. So it provoked its nemesis, the Wagner Act of 1935, that legislated an adversarial relationship between business and labor. It worked great, for a while, as auto workers and steel workers won themselves fabulous wages and benefits.

Everyone thought that the new unionism was a wonderful idea, in particular liberal writers like John Kenneth Galbraith who made a fortune peddling conventional wisdom to a generation of liberals by telling them that he and they were intelligent iconoclasts that soared above mere “conventional wisdom.”

Well, it wasn’t such a great idea. It wiped out the steel companies a generation ago, and now it’s brought the auto companies to the edge of ruin, and brought the current generation of autoworkers to the edge of humiliation.

If President-elect is the genius that his patrons believe then he will use his yiddishe neshuma to lead the autoworkers and their union and their jobs back from the precipice.

But my guess is that he won’t. My guess is that he’ll choke on the chance to get the auto companies to reorganize and write Finis on the era of Wagner Act unionism.

The sensible thing for liberals to do would be to start a strategic retreat on their welfare state and its privileges, to preserve as long as possible the unsustainable privileges and subsidies they have awarded themselves and their servitors. But I don’t think they will.

My guess is that in the next few years the liberals are going to get themeselves suckered into the political equivalent of the Battle of Kursk. That battle, you will recall, was the last big offensive of the German Army on the eastern front in World War II. It seemed like a good idea to the German generals in early 1943 but by the time that Germans actually started the offensive the Russians were ready for them. So the greatest tank battle ever fought ended in failure. The Russians began a counter-offensive that didn’t stop until it reached Berlin two years later.

After all, Barack Obama didn’t run for president to sort out the labor union problem. He ran to lower the oceans and cure the sick. Much more fun.

Brit Laborites Propose Welfare Reform

They said it wouldn’t work. They said that millions of children would starve.

That’s what the experts and the advocates said when President Clinton signed the US welfare reform bill 12 years ago.

They were wrong. All that has happened in the United States is that the welfare rolls have gone down and poverty rates have decreased.

Now the British Labour Party, champion of welfare and social programs, has announcd a welfare reform plan for Britain. It comes not before time, as Brits have been regaled recently by several welfare horror stories, including the killing of Baby P by Mum’s current boyfriend. Then there was the disappearance of Shannon Matthews. She was one of seven children out of single-parent Karen Matthews by several fathers. Little Shannon disappeared because her welfare mum (it’s Mum, not Mom, in Britland) figured to get £50,000 in reward money. So she staged her daughter’s disappearance.

Anyway, Labour minister James Purnell last week announced a welfare reform bill in Britain. Even the Labour Party has a limit when it comes to turning a blind eye to the catastrophe of the underclass.

This may be Labour’s reform plan but it is the Conservative Party in Britain that is setting the pace on social reform, writes Tim Montgomerie. He quotes Conservative Party leader David Cameron in a recent speech about children trapped in the culture of social breakdown.

Raised without manners, morals or a decent education, they’re caught up in the same destructive chain as their parents. It’s a chain that links unemployment, family breakdown, debt, drugs and crime. Breaking that chain means recognising the scale of the problem and taking serious, long-term action.

Lots of people have sneered at David Cameron. That’s because he presents himself as a new kind of Tory. But if you look at the substance that the Conservative Party is developing, including radical ideas on education and welfare, you see a party that is setting itself up as the party of real hope and real change.

In many respects, David Cameron’s Conservative party is timid but on social reform it is groundbreaking. The Tories understand that the only way of reducing the size of the state is to cut the demand for government services by strengthening civil society. They understand, finally, that the Left has lost the war on poverty. And they are rediscovering that conservatism is at its best when politicians support and never supplant the Burkean little platoons of family, voluntary organization, and local school

Sounds like US and UK conservatives are all on the same page.

Of course, the Conservatives are in opposition. All they can do is talk. But whatever they are saying, the Labour Party seems to be listening and anxious to co-opt their ideas.

Double Whammy Morning

Faced with the failure of the auto bailout in the United States Senate and the collapse of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme markets plumm... well, they seem to have shrugged. At noon, 12/12/2008, the Dow was down 95.02 points and the Nasdaq was up 5 points.

So that just shows you. It’s not the end of the world. Yet.

Most likely, as long as the financial system holds up—and LIBOR rates are down sharply in the last two days—we can deal with the auto meltdown just fine. That’s what the bankruptcy system is for. You declare Chapter 11, you wipe out the stockholders. You make the bondholders the new owners of the company. You wipe out the labor contracts. And you keep going with special bankruptcy loans.

But why then did we have to bail out the banks? The answer is simple. We can’t let the banks fail because they’d bring down the whole credit system with them. We did a nationwide experiment on that in the 1930s. Banks failed left and right, and depositors lost their life savings. It brought the United States to a standstill and a ten-year Great Depression.

Don’t think you’d like a repeat of that? Then bail out the banks.

That’s not to say that there aren’t lessons to be learned. Lesson One is: Don’t get leveraged up like that. Don’t get leveraged up on home mortgages, or credit default swaps, or government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But that’s a subject for beneficial legislation, if Congress is up for the job.

The interesting part, for me, with the bailout failure in the Senate is that Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) now proposes to go home for the holidays. Oh really? Can’t be all that urgent, can it.

The murmur you hear is that the Dems did the whole bailout thing as payoff for the United Auto Workers support in the election. And the bailout package failed because eevil Republican senators wouldn’t sign onto a bailout bill unless the UAW bit the bullet on wages and accepted “parity” in 2009.

So the Dems took a dance on the floor with the partner what brung them. But, it looks like the agreement was one dance only. Now the partner could be on their own.

Unless President Bush rushes into the breach.

But Mr. President. It looks like the market has already discounted an auto industry failure. And it looks like it thinks that it’s not the end of the world. So why worry?

Yes. There are all those “high net-worth individuals” who got taken to the cleaners by an accused Ponzi scheme. Oh well.

What About a Stimulus That Works!

Everyone agrees that what the world needs now is Stimulus.

But what kind of stimulus should it be? Should it be a tax rate cut, as Republicans and conservatives would recommend? Or should it be spending on stuff like infrastructure, as Democrats and liberals would recommend, and as President-elect Obama seems to prefer?

Harvard economics prof Greg Mankiw has some ideas on this. And like a true economist, he grades the different approaches by their “multiplier” effect. Here is what he means:

One way to think about the issue is the size of the fiscal policy multipliers. The multipliers measure bang for the buck—the amount of short-run GDP expansion one gets from a dollar of spending hikes or tax cuts.

That’s a fancy way of saying: If I spend a dollar on stimulus, how far would it go?

Guess what. Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong.

In their new blog, Bob Hall and Susan Woodward look at spending increases from World War II and the Korean War and conclude that the government spending multiplier is about one: A dollar of government spending raises GDP by about a dollar. Similarly, the results in Valerie Ramey’s research suggest a government spending multiplier of about 1.4.

Oh goody. The spending stimulus goes down like a lead balloon. But what about the prescription of eevil mean-spirited Republicans?

By contrast, recent research by Christina Romer and David Romer looks at tax changes and concludes that the tax multiplier is about three: A dollar of tax cuts raises GDP by about three dollars.

Well now. That is what you call a real bang for the buck, as they say Out West.

But this is exactly what conservatives would expect. What matters, we conservatives believe, following the 1870 marginal revolution in economics, is economic decisions on the margin. The way to stimulate the economy is to reduce the marginal cost for workers to work and investors to invest. You do that by cutting marginal tax rates on labor income and capital gains.

This is not rocket science. It is 140 year old science.

But liberals aren’t interested. If they were to accept the ideas of marginal economics then they would have to dismantle their vast, tottering patronage and client state.

Naturally, they won’t do that. Because their liberal client state is the foundation of their political power.

You’ll recall that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you live by political power you get Chicago politics and politicians like Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL).

Something to think about, Mr. President-elect.

Politics and Programs and Corruption

Everyone is chuckling about the criminal allegations made against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D). His blatant determination to “sell” the vacated US Senate seat of President-elect Barack Obama for value received is so over the top that you can’t help but laugh. Even the Wall Street Journal was able to crack a grin.

Of course, the president-elect had nothing to do with this. Nothing.

But liberals, isn’t it time to look in the mirror as little? If you chaps insist on gathering up 35 percent of the national output every year and running it through the political system, this is what you get.

All that money sloshing around, not doing very much except rewarding supporters, sets up the occasion for corruption. It’s not helping people, it is stealing from people.

Now you might say that to make the United States into a patronage state, where people get their livelihood from their association with a great lord, is no bad thing. Indeed you could argue that the world as always worked this way and always will. Political rulers naturally fall into the role of patron, and the voters and minor party functionaries naturally fall into the role of client.

But I don’t think that liberals really believe that the patronage state is really the highest and best form of political association.

Conservatives certainly don’t. That’s why we are ashamed of the corrupt Republicans who spent the last eight years trying to stay in power instead of trying to reform government programs. And why we weren’t that sorry to see the Republican Congress defeated in 2006.

Conservatives believe in an America of trust and honesty, where government is limited and Americans get their livelihood from serving each other rather than by becoming the client to a great political lord.

Our Liberal Dominator Hierarchy

Is the bad old days of the feudal era and the patriarchy, if you can remember back that far, the world was ruled by Dominator Hierarchies.

But the progressive educated elite offered itself in the nineteenth century to end all that. No, in the future we would all be gently led into a new era of equality and end the marginalization of groups oppressed by the dominators and the marginalizers.

That’s what they told us. Now let’s think reality.

Was there ever a Dominator Hierarchy like our modern progressive educated elite that rules today? It occupies the commanding heights of the culture. Its ideas dominate the activities of government. And the mighty barons of the corporate world are summoned to bend the knee at its congressional levees (the Louis XIV kind, not the Louisiana kind). We are even seeing a return to sumptuary laws, as the lower orders are learning that they should not travel around in big, wasteful SUVs but in modest transportation more appropriate to their station.

usgovernmentspending.com, of course, is an eternal witness to the liberal Dominator Hierarchy’s implacable power. Just take a look when you have a moment.

Want to opt out of the centrally administered program of government pensions at $900 billion per year? Good luck chum.

Want to opt out of the centrally administered program of government health care at $950 billion per year? Out of luck, chum. The Dominator Hierarch plans to increase the level of compulsion.

Want to opt out of the centrally administered program of government education at $875 billion per year? You can, of course, but you still have to pay your share anyway. And the Dominator Hierarch is planning to extend its power and control to pre-kindergarten.

Want to opt out of the centrally administered program of government welfare at $465 billion per year? Good luck, chum.

Notice the level of compulsion and domination here? We have just reeled off 20 percent of GDP in force and compulsion, and we haven’t even got to defense and policing yet.

Funny thing, isn’t it? All this noble largesse isn’t free, and it isn’t voluntary. The Dominator Hierarchy has decided what is good for you and your job is to say how much you like it.

The charming thing about this implacable liberal Dominator Hierarchy, the most complete and powerful, perhaps, in all history, is that it experiences itself as an enlightened successor to a Dark Age of Domination, called to witness to the evils of domination and to gently minister to a grateful people its new order of diversity and inclusion.

But then, what is new about that? Every tyrant thinks himself a savior. The only fiend in all history that revelled in his evil was Othello’s tormentor, Iago. But he wasn’t real, just a fiction.

Wal-Mart's FEMA Actually Delivers

Liberals hate Wal-Mart. Well, they do. They hate Wal-Mart because it puts Main Street businesses out of business. They hate Wal-Mart because it’s non-union and it doesn’t offer first-dollar health insurance.

But Wal-Mart delivers Always Low Prices, Always. And that helps all people on low incomes. Funnily enough, Wal-Mart is doing fine in the current recession while Whole Foods is tanking.

And Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen where it counts. Like in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as the Suburban Emergency Management Project reports.

You see Wal-Mart has an Emergency Operations Center at its Bentonville, AR headquarters. Whenever there’s a natural disaster Wal-Mart mobilizes to deliver. Part of Wal-Mart’s planning involves replenishing stores when there is a disaster alert. Wal-Mart has over eight Disaster Distribution Centers in its complement of over 100 distribution centers nationwide.

So when Hurricane Katrina struck, Wal-Mart was ready, even including an inspirational message from CEO Lee Scott to Wal-Mart associates.

This company will respond to the level of this disaster. A lot of you are going to have to make decisions above your level. Make the best decision that you can with the information that̢۪s available to you at the time, and, above all, do the right thing.

As soon as possible Wal-Mart was trucking in supplies into the devastated area. Of course it wasn’t easy. The public sector, at all levels of government, was slow getting moving. Also, governments had contracts with private-sector companies other than Wal-Mart who weren’t able to mobilize as efficiently. Pretty soon Wal-Mart found itself supplying government agencies with which it didn’t have a contract. But Wal-Mart delivered.

â€Å“Phillip Capitano, mayor of the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, reported, â€Å“The only lifeline in Kenner was the Wal-Mart stores. We didn’t have looting on a mass scale because Wal-Mart showed up with food and water so our people could survive.” Similar reports of Wal-Mart’s prompt and effective involvement came from community leaders across the Gulf Coast.

There’s no doubt that Wal-Mart has an interest in good PR, in building public support for its brand. So Wal-Mart is only helping Wal-Mart when it helps out in a disaster.

But let nobody forget that CEO Scott set the tone from the top: “Above all, do the right thing.”

Rebuilding the Conservative Story Part III: Elevator Story

We’ve spent the last couple of days talking about the conservative story. What is our Vision? What is our Mission? Now it’s time to define our elevator story.

Every enterprise needs an Elevator Story. It’s the spiel you give to someone in 30 seconds or less when they say: What do you do? Now that conservatives in their political instantiation in the Republican Party have been roundly defeated, we have to ask ourselves: What is our story? What’s the point of being a conservative?

If you’re going to tell a story then you should tell a story. You should start by setting the stage, define the essential conflict, point towards a resolution, and describe the happy outcome. So here goes.

Setting the Stage:
In America today, government is cruel, corrupt, unjust; and it just costs too much.

Isn’t this just about how conservatives feel? The current welfare state, in which the American people cough up for $900 billion of government pensions, $950 billion in government health care, $875 billion in government education, and $470 billion in government welfare, every year, is an abomination. Never mind the corrupt patronage system. There is the cruelty of a system that has destroyed the family in the underclass, the injustice of a system that screws the working poor and rewards the non-working poor. It. Is. Wrong.

The Conflict:
Liberals created this monster. Liberals believe that compulsory government programs are the way to help the poor and comfort the afflicted.
But they are wrong. Government is not compassion. Government is force. You cannot solve social problems by force.

This is the basic touch point between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you can solve social problems with government programs. Conservatives believe that you must solve them person-to-person, face-to-face. That issues out of the meaning of the word compassion, literally, “suffering with.” Running a government program with tax dollars to help the poor isn’t “suffering with.”

The Resolution:
Society is not social force; it is social cooperation. That’s why we must reform the welfare state into the welfare society.
In the welfare society the American people, not liberal experts, will be in charge of their own health care, their children’s education, the comfort of the afflicted, and the decent provision of pensions.

Liberals believe in the welfare state; conservatives believe in the welfare society. That issues out of the basic conservative belief, initially voiced by Edmund Burke, that “To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of publick affections.”

When you are thinking about politics it is best to take advantage of our better angels than to work against them. And we humans are, first of all, social animals that must live together rather than apart. So conservatives believe that “social problems” must be solved by people in their little platoons--family, neighbors, friends, associations, and charities--and not by bureaucrats. That's not easy, of course. It means that we can't just pay our taxes and complain about the government. We have to get involved and help people.

The Outcome:
With conservative reforms America will truly become that shining city on a hill, “still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom.”

So there is our Elevator Story. The current situation is intolerable. Liberals are to blame. The solution is to get government out of the way and put people back in. And the future is glorious, just as Ronald Reagan promised.

Rebuilding the Conservative Story Part II: Mission Statement

Yesterday we triumphantly designed a Vision Statement to guide conservatives during our rebuilding process. Today, as promised, we are releasing a Mission Statement to the world.

As everyone knows, in the subculture of off-site team-building meetings, the Vision Statement is a gauzy, uplifting, inspirational definition of the goal of an organization. The Mission Statement is more down to earth. It answers the question: What are we trying to do today?

How hard can this be? The conservative Mission Statement is short and concise:

We fight to reform a cruel and unjust welfare state.

Yes, I know that there is the War on Terror, and in the week after the brutal massacre of the innocents in Mumbai, who can forget it for a moment? But actually, I don’t think that the War on Terror is the front-and-center thing that conservatives must do.

I believe that we can count on our liberal friends to do the right thing by the War on Terror. They just have one little problem. They don’t want Republicans to get all the glory. They want to fight the war in their own sophisticated, nuanced way. Republicans just don’t know how to do nuanced, they know.

But conservatives are called to reform the dreadful, cruel, corrupt, and unjust welfare state, or we are called for nothing at all.

Let us repeat the words of David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party:

There is such a thing as society. It’s just not the same thing as the state.

In that statement, Cameraon (the lightweight?) encapsulates the whole thrust of conservative thinking. We all want to help the least amongst us. We want to comfort the afflicted. The question is: How? Shall we do it will rational, expert-driven bureaucratic programs from the cental government? Or shall we do it as individual people, joined into voluntary assocations, working together to help our fellow Americans?

Conservatives say that the rigid, compulsory, expert-led, bureaucratic way is not the way to help people. In fact, if you try to help people with government programs and bureaucracy, you get this:

Do you see the same thing that I am seeing? A little over one generation ago, about one in eight of the children of the uneducated were denied the basic human right to live with mother and father. But thirty years later four out of ten children of the uneducated were denied this right, and lived in a single-mother home.

Want to know how this happened? The welfare state did it. Liberals who drive the intellectual foundations of the welfare state and who manage the great bureaucracies of the welfare state did this.

And it is wrong.

That is why I say that the mission of the conservative movement is short and sweet:

We fight to reform a cruel and unjust welfare state.

Tomorrow: the Conservative Elev    ator Story.

Rebuilding the Conservative Story Part I: Vision Statement

Before we get to the specifics and the personalities of the glorious conservative future—will it be Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal—let’s do the due diligence. Let’s start with a Vision Statement.

Yes, I know, all that off-site team-building stuff is awfully trite, but it has a point. It forces you to think about: Who we are, and what do we want, and why?

So let’s start with a Vision Statement. Here it is:

We believe in an America that lives and works together, with limited government, under God.

Alert readers will notice that we are covering the three sectors of Michael Novak’s The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Well of course we are. What did you expect? We are talking about the Greater Separation of Powers between the economic sector, the political sector, and the moral/cultural sector.

So when we talk about an America where we “live and work together” we are evoking the system of voluntary cooperation under law that we call capitalism. But we are trying to evoke a little more than that, because the notion of free enterprise is too guy-like. We must include the girl side of voluntary cooperation, and that means the community of women working together, sharing and caring. In the guy side, we are battling all the other guys for market share. Competition instead of cooperation. But for the girls we want to think of cooperation before competition. So we fudge it.

When we talk about an America with “limited government” we are talking about an America where the government doesn’t get its fingers into every pie as it does today. It would be an America where four of the five biggest government programs would not be: government pensions, government healthcare, government education, and government welfare. Instead the two biggest programs would be defense against enemies foreign, and defense against enemies domestic. Look at usgovernmentspending.com to get a feel for what that might look like.

When we talk about an America “under God” we are talking about an America where the dominant belief system is transcendent. We mean that the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is not solvable by a secular religion of heaven on earth. Life is a mystery, and the meaning of life is not given to us. So we develop a faith in the value of life and the meaning of life, typically symbolized by the notion of God. “God” in this sense is a declaration of humility. We will not solve the meaning of life by reason, or experimentation. Of course that will not stop us from reasoning, or from experimenting to get a better understanding of life, the universe, and everything. But we understand that every time we advance human knowledge a step, the ultimate answer recedes a step. All we do is raise the stakes.

So there it is. Step One in rebuilding the conservative story.

We believe in an America that lives and works together, with limited government, under God.

Next up: A new conservative Mission Statement.

Anthro Knickers in a Twist

I’d never heard of Montogmery McFate. Well I do now. She’s the social scientist that inspired the Pentagon’s Human Terrain System in Iraq. Says Wired:

Today she is the senior social science adviser for the Human Terrain System, a $130 million Army program that embeds political science, anthropology and economics specialists with combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh no! Social scientists assisting Pentagon combat units! Isn’t that unethical?

Because you are a sensitive conservative you know that proper social scientists don’t ever touch the Pentagon. Not if they want a career in the university. How could Mitzi McFate do this? And bring American anthropologists into disrepute all over the world.

Actually, no problem for McFate. When she started injecting herself into the Iraq War she was an army wife and didn’t have a job.

But here’s the problem, according to Inside Education:

The president of the Southwestern Anthropological Association invited Montgomery McFate to give the keynote address at the association̢۪s spring conference in Las Vegas.

But McFate’s work is “hitched to an initiative that has been formally opposed by the AAA’s executive board.”

Well, I hope so. I couldn’t imagine that the American Anthropological Association would do anything other than try the stop the Pentagon from doing anything.

Few anthropologists would question the value of inviting McFate to speak — or the importance of having free speech and scholarly engagement on such controversial topics.

Oh, no. Of course not. But the problem is that some people think that inviting McFate to make a keynote address “implies an honor.” And we wouldn’t want that.

And anyway, McFate failed “to appear at a scheduled speaking engagement Saturday at the AAA conference.” She was supposed to appear at an event where her critics would have an opportunity to respond.

So now the scholars are all arguing about whether a keynote speech amounts to an honor. (And also whether McFate should ever be allowed to speak without an opportunity for her critics to respond.)

Yep. Our unserious Academy. You couldn’t make it up.

After Mumbai

The big question about “islamic extremism” is whether to consider it a global mass movement of militant conquest or whether to think of it as a Ghost Shirt movement.

We’ve seen a number of global mass movements over the past century or so: commmunism, socialism, fascism. There were certainly moments when it looked like those movements, at once modern and reactionary, looked like they might take over the world. Does islamic terrorism fit into that template?

Or is it like the late 19th century Ghost Shirt movement, the last desperate convulsion of the Plains Indians to halt the annihilation of their culture by the western European capitalist democratic moloch? Or another late 19th century eruption, the Boxers, the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, young Han Chinese trying to push back the advance of the western European capitalist democratic moloch?

My guess, even after the bloodbath of Mumbai last week, is that the Islamic terrorists are more properly understood as violent young rich kids, young men desperately trying to push back the advance of the western European capitalist democratic moloch into the islamic heartland.

There’s an argument to be made that Islam might one day take over Europe, and it is made well by Mark Steyn in America Alone. But could they take over the Hindu heartlands of India. I’ll bet that if you ask a Hindu he will say: Over my dead body. He’ll say: We didn’t spend a century of effort getting the Brits out of India and taking India back from the muslim Mughals in order to give it away to a bunch of Pakistani Kashmiri killers.

Or China. Ask a Han Chinese, and I’ll bet he’ll say that after the humiliation of the last two hundred years in which China, the Middle Kingdom, was humiliated by the west, invaded by the Japanese, and nearly wrecked by Mao ZeDong twice, China is not going to allow a bunch of muslim rich kids to stop the return of China to its rightful place at the head of the world’s nations.

And here is another reason, if you have the stomach for it. One of the central facts of the modern era is the emergence of women into the public square. Christianity is the woman’s religion par excellence. For instance, two-thirds of adherents in the Pentecostal movement are women. In the next few years you are going to see the Chinese house church movement going public. And we may even see Christianity making big inroads into the Dalits in India.

So I make the strategic judgment that the future does not belong to Islam.

It certainly doesn’t have a hope if we make a sensible transition to a nuclear-powered future and back out a lot of fossil fuel consumption with nuclear emergy production. If that happens there won’t be too much Saudi wealth available to fund the terrorists any more.

But then we’ll find something else to worry about.

Is it Bush 3 or Clinton 3?

When President-elect Obama ran for office Republicans and conservatives were terrified that Americans would be electing a left-wing radical if he were elected.

Today the folks most terrified must be idealistic Obama supporters who really believed in “Change we can believe in.” President-elect Obama has appointed an economic team that the eevil Karl Rove likes.

[O]verall, Monday’s announcement of Mr. Obama’s economic team was reassuring. He’s generally surrounded himself with intelligent, mainstream advisers. Investors, workers and business owners can only hope that, over time, this new administration’s economic policies bear more of their market-oriented imprint.

He has proposed to retain Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and now General James Jones, according to Con Coughlin is regarded as a good bet for National Security Advisor. Writes Coughlin:

[Jones] is known as an arch-hawk on Iraq who, like Mr Gates, was a firm advocate in persuading President Bush to implement the successful surge strategy.

Some conservatives are all bent out of shape because Obama is stealing their clothes. But I think that we should be delighted. What Obama is saying by his actions is that there was nothing wrong with the policies of the Republican Party except that Republicans were in charge. It’s ok to execute from the Republican play-book as long as it is trusted Democrats that are executing the plays.

It puts the whole Bush era in a new perspective. The problem that the Democrats had, many of us felt, was that the stupid and incompetent Bush wasn’t a Democrat. The cold-cock politics of knocking down every Republican initiative was purely partisan.

Now that Democrats are in power they can legislate and execute based on the merits of the case, not on whether it is Republicans proposing it.

That has to be good for America.

Watching Science 2.0

The current scientific research model, call it Science 1.0, was invented by the Germans in the early 19th century.

In the chaos of French-occupied Germany after the disaster of defeat at the hands of Napoleon the Germans decided: Never Again. They determined to build up Germany so that the French could never be strong enough to invade the German heartland, as they had been doing with annoying regularity for nigh on 200 years.

Part of the plan was education, to educate Germans and strengthen the state. And part of the education plan was the research university with its tenured professors. Pretty soon, everyone was copying them, converting universities from churning out clergymen to churning out scientists and engineers. The first research university in the US was Johns Hopkins.

But there’s a problem with this plan, especially if we look at it from the perspective of Micvhael Novak’s Three Sectors: political, economic, and moral/cultural.

The research university and its professors are creatures of the political sector. In fact, you could say that today the education system exists solely to bolster the power of the political sector. Of course, that’s what the Germans had in mind in the first place.

But in the Novak system the idea of the three differentiated sectors of society is that they are separate and independent, and jealous of each other’s power, just like the three branches of government. In their separation and their jealous monitoring of each other’s power they preserve and defend freedom and justice.

You can see the problem when you look at physics, which got all its money because it could offer the politicians H-bombs. Or the social scientists, who could offer the politicians the tools to run (or at least pretend to run) the welfare state.

Now we have the global warming scientists, who get huge sums of research money to investigate global warming for the politicians. Not surprisingly they instinctively understand that the continuance of the research grants depends on a continuing crisis. So they deliver.

Enter Science 2.0. Today, thanks to the internet and to open-source software, anyone can open a blog and start analyzing the data from the government-grant-maintained scientists. As often as not, they find problems. After all, with all their money and their titles, and their powerful political patrons, these grant-maintained chaps are still bureaucrats.

Over the last week we have seen a couple of brilliant entries in Science 2.0 on the global warming front.

First of all there is the effort of Willis Eschenbach at Climate Audit. In an elegant analysis of Michael Mann’s hockey stick data, he showed that the hockey stick signal was carried by only 25 of Mann’s 95 temperature proxy series, and that all of the 25 were problematic. Take out the 25 problem series and you got a temperature series that looked like the old consensus view of the earth’s climate in the last millennium. You start with a Medieval Warming Period followed by a Little Ice Age, followed by the current warming period—which is still cooler than the peak of the MWP.

Second is a nice analysis by Bill Illis at Watts Up With That. Illis takes the global temperature record and removes the fluctuations caused by the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). ENSO is the primary fluctuation associated with the Pacific Ocean and AMO is the primary fluctuation associated with the Atlantic Ocean. What happens? Well, you get a lot less global warming, because we are just at the peak of the last AMO uptick that began in about 1975.The grant-maintained scientists have been telling us that the temperature increase since 1975 has been a global warming signal. They have not told us that we should take into account that the global warming signal has been amplified by the AMO and ENSO fluctuations.

Of course, these amateurs, Eschenbach and Illis, could be wrong. So could the government grant-holders. So could any man. But their analysis is out there, and anyone can take a whack at it. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. No harm, no foul.

There’s an inherent advantage to the Science 2.0 model. The Science 2.0 chappies don’t have careers at stake, so they don’t have to be as defensive as the Science 1.0 careerists who are, in the last analysis, only front men for powerful patrions in the political sector.

And politics, the postmodernists tell us, is all about building a narrative of power.

Obama's Center Right Team

Some conservatives seem non-plussed by President-elect Obama’s picks for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and his White House economic team of Larry Summers and Christine Romer. What’s this left-wing radical doing appointing a center-right economic team? What indeed?

But uber-supply-sider Larry Kudlow is complimentary.

There is nothing to be surprised about. Nobody could know what Obama would do. He had no track record on economic policy.

He had a track record that showed him associating with left-wing radicals on his way to power. But that could have been mere opportunism, knowing that lefties would like helping a young (and Harvard-educated) black liberal.

And there is no need to feel betrayed, that a President Obama will take credit for a supply-side economic policy that makes Democrats look good. Assuming that he actually executes a supply-side policy.

Let’s not forget what Ronald Reagan said about this. It’s suprising what you can get done when you don’t mind who gets the credit.

No. What we conservatives want is to bury forever the class-warfare client-state economic policy that liberals instinctively want. Just as we wanted welfare reform even if President Clinton got the credit.

We don’t just want a supply-side economic policy for ourselves. We also want it for immigrant and inner-city Americans who will never get out of poverty with welfare state policies, but will get ahead with supply-side welfare society policies.

When a Democratic president moves the playing field and becomes a little bit supply-side, then Republicans can say: if a little bit of supply-side is so great, why not a little more?

What’s not to like about that?

Occam's Razor Cuts Again

It’s a red letter day for us global warming deniers.

Over at Climate Audit Willis Escenbach has done some analysis on the temperature proxies used in Mann et al. (2008), the paper thay updated MBH98, in which Michael Mann introduced the "hockey stick" to the world.

That first paper in 1998 shocked the world by showing that the earth’s climate was pretty steady for the last 1,000 years, only shooting up when the industrial revolution got really started in the mid-19th century.

This was important because previously everyone had thought that the earth had been warmer than today in a Medieval Warming Period.

But Eschenbach’s analysis shows that the “hockey stick” signal is only carried by two sets of data series, or about 25 proxies out of the total of 95.

One set of data are three Tiljander lake sediment series from Finland. Tiljander has advised that these data should not be used as temperature proxies because they are corrupted by urban development in the last century and a half.

The other set of data are mostly the various bristle-cone pine series assembled by Donald Graybill. These are all from high-altitude pine trees in the US southwest. Writes Eschenbach:

[Graybill’s] work has been called into serious question by Linah Abadneh’s thesis, wherein she was unable to replicate his results.

What happens if you throw out the Tiljander lake sediments and the Graybill pines?

You get a chart that shows a Medieval Warming Period, a Little Ice Age, and temperatures today that are lower than they were a thousand years ago. What a surprise.

Here's Obama!

Everybody’s been asking: “Where’s Obama” on just about everything. What’s his take on the auto bailout? Rush Limbaugh wants him to issue a statement promising no tax increases for a few years.

But at least there seems to be movement on the auto bailout, according to Bloomberg.

President-Elect Barack Obama`s transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry’s financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

That is what they call a trial balloon.

And it seems that, from the various quotes from Washington barons of the realm, that the idea has some support.

It would probably be my preferred option. But whatever it is, it has to include haircuts all round.

The whole point of a recession is the liquidation of the malinvestments of the previous boom. Well, we are well into the liquidation of the mal-mortgages of the previous boom. Now it’s time to look at the malinvestment of the previous half-century in sky-high wages and benefits for auto workers.

It seemed like a good idea half a century ago, to promise good wages and benefits out of the huge profits of the auto companies. But things got a bit out of hand, as they do when politics gets involved in anything. Now it is time to face reality.

It’s time to get past denial, as our liberal friends say.

What New Deal?

Rumor has it that Obama’s advisors are planning some sort of a Big Bang program in January. As Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council:

You should never let a crisis go to waste. [It lets us address long-term problems] in the health care area, the energy area, the education area, the fiscal area, [and] the tax area.

You can see what is coming, given that President-elect Obama represents the progressive educated elite. What is coming is an intensification of the power of the progressive educated elite expressed through the power of the political sector. They want to enact a hugely dirigiste program that puts government even more deeply into every area of American life. It’s a “new” New Deal.

That’s all very well, but as Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes in the Wall Street Journal, how about Obama cleans up the festering problems of the old New Deal that are just now wiping out the economy.

His real problem is the crack-up of the world FDR built.


Fannie Mae was a New Deal creation, subsidizing the securitization of mortgage debt. FDR’s successors piled on the subsidies for housing debt and incentives directed at low-income borrowers. Kaboom.


Then there’s the UAW, born in 1935. For decades the UAW steadily traded away domestic auto market-share to imports and transplants to keep its aging membership toiling away toward their golden pensions and collecting wages and benefits twice those of their competitors. It worked for a while.

But now Kaboom. Rahm Emanuel thinks that the answer to all these failed government policies is more of the same.

Of course, the problem wasn’t so much with the original New Deal policies, but the fact that the powers granted to the government and to its favored interests were so shockingly abused. The bright young men of the New Deal may have designed some useful programs. But then the bright young men went on to the next new thing, and the programs got taken over by time servers and placemen.

The same will happen to Obama’s government-centric ideas—assuming that they even work in the first place.

In my view, the increased centralization of health care, energy, education, and so on will hasten the day when the whole project of the progressive educated elite hits the buffers.

And the people that get hurt will be the trusting independent voters who just voted innocently for Hope and Change.

Not Your Father's GOP

Kathleen Parker is a conservative columnist who went off the reservation during the recent campaign with an article praising Christopher Buckley for endorsing then-candidate Obama.

Then she got some hate mail.

Now she’s got an article in the Washington Post that urges Republicans to get G-O-D out of the party.

The fact is that a number of elite Republicans don’t really like the idea of the Republican Party as the party of the aspirational white working class.

You’ll find, if you investigate, that a common denominator in aspirational groups is a belief in God. It goes back at least to the Protestant Reformation. And so, if the party of Lincoln becomes the party of Palin and Joe the Plumber you can expect a lot of God stuff. And that’s a problem to people like Parker.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.

I’ve heard this from a number of conservative friends, professional types with money in the bank. And I understand. Enthusiastic Christians like the Christian conservatives of today’s conservative movement have always been an embarrassment to established conservatives. Their naivete, their faith, their certainty—well they just aren’t out of the top drawer.

Sorry. Count me out of the exodus. If the Republican Party ceases to be the party of the moneyed professional class and becomes the party of the aspirational working class, then I’d rather stay than quit.

In my view the aspirational working class has taken it in the chin these last decades. The political elite has made it more and more difficult to be independent and aspirational and we know why. Ordinary people are only interesting to a political elite if they are useful to its program of power. In the present western world, ordinary people are useful to the elite if they are victims. They are useful if they are frightened. They are useful if they are dependent.

The aspirational working class is composed of people that used to be victims. They used to be frightened. They used to be dependent. But now they are climbing. Now they are succeeding. They’d like the nation’s politics and culture to recognize their achievement and honor their culture.

It seemed like it was only yesterday that the political elite loved the white working class to pieces. That was when they were the principal victim group that the elite wanted to sponsor. But the elite has gone on from class warfare to race politics and gender politics—that’s where they mine for new victims today. Today the white working class is an embarrassment, with its bitter embrace of God and guns.

Anyway, so what if the Republican Party becomes the party of working-class and middle-class aspiration? There might be more people interested in that kind of party than you might think, God or no God.

Bail-out for the Banks but not for Detroit?

If we can spend $700 billion on a bank bail-out why not spend a measly $25 billion on the auto companies?

The simple answer is that we can’t let the banks go broke. We tried it, sort of, back in September when Lehmen Brothers went belly up. The fallout from that nuclear explosion is still irradiating us.

But the bankrupty of an industrial corporation is not so bad. The railroads went in and out of bankruptcy with regularity in the 19th century. And the world didn’t end when the Penn Central went bankrupt in 1970 (in a recession, of course). Corporations go bankrupt when they run out of equity. In crude terms, the stockholders get handed their heads and the bondholders get to own the company.

When you look at the balance sheet of General Motors, today, November 18, 2008, you see Total Assets of $110 billion, Total Liabilities of $170 billion, for a Total Equity of minus $60 billion. That negative equity is mostly an Accumulated Deficit of $61 billion. No much to go on.

The best solution for General Motors is to go into bankruptcy. Then the creditors can get together and decide what to do to get something out of the wreck. And then the politicians could decide what they would be prepared to do to help out. General Motors could keep operating, of course, during all this.

A lot of people are going to have to take a haircut over the failure of General Motors. Right now, too many of them are still in denial. So they won’t agree to a haircut until General Motors actually goes broke.

The haircut can’t start until General Motors declares Chapter 11.

Those Pesky Russkie UHIs

Last week was great fun for global warming deniers. There was an almighty cock-up on the monthly temperature front as NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies released a “record” month temperature for October. Trouble was that the temperatures for a bunch of stations in Siberia were for September, not October. Not our fault, said the chaps at GISS. Blame the chaps at NOAA.

(Gotta love those government bureacrats and their CYA antics.)

But the real fun ensued later as the bloggers at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That started taking a look at the Siberian stations in question with help from Google Earth. The little Siberian towns where the temperature stations are located all have district heating systems, where steam is distributed from a central power station to heat the buildings in the town. What about the urban heat island effect from all that?

Then an alert commenter came in with the coup de grace. All the heat that is generated in a city, big or small, escapes into the environment, wrote Willis Eschenbach (04:05:35).

That’s why it doesn’t matter if the steam pipes are insulated or not … the main heat loss is from the houses and factories that are heated by the steam. All of the heat piped around the town ends up warming the environment.

Of course. The whole argument about the size of the urban heat island (UHI) effect is moot. Of course it’s there, and of course it is substantial. You just have to do an energy budget on a city, and figure that almost all the energy it uses, in electric generation, in space heating, in transportation, all of it, pretty well, is discharged to the environment.

And it ain’t chump change.

The Social Liberal/Economic Conservative Chimera

Why don’t conservatives just give up on the social conservatism, a lot of people argue? Then they could pick up the votes of all the social liberal/economic conservatives out there.

That would be a good idea, writes Jonah Goldberg, if indeed there was a great reservoir of social liberal/economic conservative votes out there. But the record is that they ain’t there.

Economically conservative social liberals are the “jackalopes of American politics,” in the words of the National Review Institute’s Kate O’Beirne. The press keeps telling us they exist out there in huge numbers, but when you go looking for them, they refuse to emerge from the bushes.

That’s because most people like that are really Democrats. They are really inviting Republicans to give up and become Democrats just like them. The truth is that social conservatism and economic conservatism go together.

For example, in Congress and in state legislatures, the more pro-life you are, the more likely you are to be a free-market, low-tax conservative. The more pro-choice you are, the more likely it is that you will be remarkably generous with other people’s money.

This makes sense. If you value life and big families then you will build up a social safety net around you of people related to you by blood who are likely to feel an obligation to help you if you need help. But if you don’t have children, don’t get married, don’t keep up with your family, then you are much more likely to feel the need for a government safety net. And why not? Everyone needs a safety net. So socially liberal people naturally gravitate to the economically liberal party—meaning the welfare-state party

In my view the famous social liberal/economic conservative crowd are people that are relatively well-off. They are active enough in the economy as business owners or as well-paid professionals to have faith in the economy to sustain them. They are rich enough that they don’t need to cultivate family ties as a practical way of maintaining a strong safety net. For them, their wealth and their income-generating potential serves as a safety net.

They are rich enough that they can afford to be socially liberal.

PJ's Lament

Poor old P.J. O’Rourke is singing the blues. In a post-election lament in The Weekly Standard he writes we’ve only ourselves to blame. “We blew it,” he writes.

The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We’ve had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.

It’s true. If there was a mistake to be made in the last 20 years, conservatives and Republicans made it. And made it in spades.

Only trouble is: That’s always the way. That’s what humans do. We make every mistake in the book, all the time. That’s why we’ve developed these outsized brains of ours. So we can figure out how to climb out of the holes we dig for ourselves.

So let’s think this through again. Given that we conservatives are all fallible mortals, and given that we are battling against the progressive educated class, the ruling class of the modern era, how much better could we have done?

OK, all right. We could have done a lot better.

The main thing is to learn from our mistakes, and do better next time.

But, the big problem really has nothing to do with us. Try as we might, there’s not much we can do to promote truth, freedom, and the American Way if the American people really prefer the “free” services of the nanny state.

So cheer up P.J.  Things could be a lot worse. The Democrats could have won 60-40 in the presidential election and be up 65-35 in the Senate.

President Bush a Conservative?

Is Bush really a conservative? That’s what some conservatives were asking back in 2000 when then Governor Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative.” And conservatives are asking it again as conservatives go out into the wilderness following the presidential win of Sen. Barack Obama.

According to Jonah Goldberg there are two sides to the argument.

In one corner, there are a large number of bright, mostly younger, self-styled reformers with a diverse — and often contradictory — set of proposals to win back middle-class voters...


In another corner are self-proclaimed traditional conservatives and Reaganites, led most notably by Rush Limbaugh, who believe that the party desperately needs to get back to the basics: limited government, low taxes and strong defense.

Maybe, writes Jonah, the two sides will see how much they have in common when Bush is out of the way.

But blaming Bush is besides the point. In 2000 the voters were tired of plain-Reagan conservatism. With the budget in balance they wanted government to step out a little, and Bush responded as a good politician must if he wants to be elected. And in the cold-cock era with Democrats stopping all genuine reform of their welfare state including the dreaded Fannie and Freddie Bush had limited ability to enact conservative reform.

In four years, or maybe eight years, Americans will once again say that it’s “time for a change.” Then there will be another chance for conservative reform.

But the big prize, in my judgment, is a generation away. That moment will come when women decided that men make better husbands than the nanny state. When they do that then it will bring the whole edifice of the welfare state into question: the government pensions, the government health care, the government education, and the government welfare.

Today all that stuff costs a little north of $3 trillion per year. In a generation from now? Well, let’s not think about that.

But when women turn that corner, and they will, then we will really be able to talk about a conservative era.

Honoring Our Veterans

This world is not a world of peace and justice. It is a world of violence and plunder. Thus it is that governments are organized amongst mankind, to defend against the destructive forces in the world, to defend against enemies foreign and domestic.

Those most particularly called to defend us are the young men and women of the armed forces, the young and strong that are called upon to defend the old and weak.

The veterans of our armed forces were called upon to make sacrifices that may have cut them off from the fulfillment of a normal life: a decent job, a happy marriage, and flourishing children.

So on this day we honor our veterans, those who have stood in the line between order and chaos, between free exchange and brutal plunder.

Many of them have seen horrors that will haunt them all their days; many of them suffered wounds that will diminish their lives forever. And some, too many, have made the ultimate sacrifice, and died that we might live.

There is no recompense that society can give to its veterans for their sacrifice. What they have lost in our nation’s service is lost forever.

But we can show them our respect and honor, and always keep in our minds the service and sacrifice they have rendered up to our great nation, to fight that we might live in peace.

Defining the Modern Foundation

I’ve been reading liberal Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor recently, for a very simple reason.  I want to know the best that liberals can think.

Then I want to write about how liberals every day in every way betray and corrupt their principles in the vanity of their corrupt and hypocritical rule.

So let’s look at this quote from the end of Sources of the Self and tease it out a little.  Taylor is talking about the “moral imperatives” of our “modern culture.”

These emerge out of long-standing moral notions of freedom, benevolence, and the affirmation of ordinary life... I have been sketching a schematic map... [of] the moral sources [of these notions]... the original theistic grounding for these standards... a naturalism of disengaged reason, which in our day takes scientistic forms, and a third family of views which finds its sources in Romantic expressivism, or in one of the modernist successor visions.

He means that the central driving forces of our modern culture are our faith in freedom, in helping others, and in valuing and honoring the trajectory of ordinary life, the life of work and family, of marriage and children.  This last item is new, because in the old days ordinary life was considered rather demeaning.  Only the higher life, the courageous life of the warrior or the bios theoretikos of the philosopher was worthy of respect.

Taylor marshals three sources of meaning that underpin the moral imperatives.  They include the inheritance of Judeo-Christian religion.  In his formulation, perhaps the most significant contribution of theistic religion has been the banishment of magic to the periphery.  There are no longer good and evil spirits wielding their power in the world.  Only God.

Then there is the influence of modern science, what he calls “disengaged reason,”  Everyone knows how science permeates everything we think and do. 

And finally there is “Romantic expressivism.”  All of us, even conservatives, are driven by the Romantic notion of the creative individual, creating something new, breaking the mold, making a mark, challenging the status quo.

We conservatives believe in a balanced faith in all these notions and symbols.  Our liberal friends do not.   We conservatives believe in a balanced faith in freedom, in helping others, and in the trajectory of ordinary life through youth, marriage, children, career, and old age.  And we believe that life should be lived as far as possible outside the orbit of force and compulsion.  Our liberal friends believe in universal compulsion.

We conservatives believe in a balanced application of religious values, of science, and of creativity.  Our liberal friends do not.  They believe in self-expression in a consuming cult of creativity, in science when it supports their creative life, and religion when it agrees with their secular pursuit of power.  All these things are for them alone.  Other people must do what they are told.

We all agree on the same things.  It’s just that liberals don’t believe in living up to their principles.  That’s because they have the power, the interior lines on political and cultural power.  As George Maroutsos says: You don’t have power unless you’ve abused it.  Power without abuse is just responsibility.

Excited?  So was General “Chesty” Puller when it was reported that his Marines were almost surrounded.  We’ve got them just where we want them, he growled.

The Party of Aspiration

The New Republic was nosing through the election results earlier this week, and discussing the long-term trend in party affiliation.

Over the last several decades, the country has seen two swing groups move in opposite directions: Working-class whites exiting the Democratic Party, and more affluent, educated voters leaving the GOP.

But in this election the working-class white trend bifurcated.

Among all whites without college degrees (40 percent of the electorate), Obama lost by a whopping 18 points. But among whites making $50,000 per year or less (a quarter of the electorate), he lost by a mere 4 points.

Which makes sense, if you ask me. Because the Republican Party is the party of aspiration. It is the party of people who are aiming to improve their lot in life. That is why aspirational working-class whites are exiting the Democratic Party and non-aspirational working-class whites are not.

The Democratic Party is the party of credentials. Get the right credentials, and get a government job (as a union worker, a teacher, health worker, or professor) and you get set up for life.

You often learn more about yourself when you fail than when you succeed. In the greatest failure in modern Republican Party history, the election of 1964, the party faithful found out that they had a rising star in Ronald Reagan. For the next twenty years, Democrats sneered at him as a lightweight and a B-movie actor. But he still became president of the United States.

The standouts of the recent election were, obviously, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Both of them are aspirational Americans, in the process of improving their lot, or at least dreaming of improving their lot. So we may look back at the election of 2008 and say: that was they year that the Republican Party as a Middle America party of aspiration was truly born.

Maybe not. You can never tell. The sky is always full of portents. But most of the portents signify nothing.

The telling part about it all was the viciousness of the liberal attack on Palin and Joe. There was obviously something profoundly offensive in Sarah and Joe to the liberal mind.

It’s not hard to understand why. Liberals don’t like aspirational people. They don’t like them because they don’t fit in the liberal plantation. In fact you could say that aspirational people look like troublemakers to the overseers of the liberal plantation.

But it is still astonishing to realize that, for our liberal friends, people like Sarah Palin and Joe Wurzelbacher are an offense to all good-thinking people, and must be destroyed.

I’m still finding it a bit hard to get my mind around that.

Back to Basics

OK. We’ve congratulated President-elect Barack Obama on his victory. Now it’s time to get back to basics.

It’s the old question after a defeat in battle. What are we here for?

For the conservative movement the answer is the same as it was always been since Edmund Burke invented conservatism in 1790 with his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

Conservatives stand for a balanced understanding of human life and human meaning. We assert a fundamental ignorance about our human destiny. That is why we stood against the French Revolution, as Burke did. We also stand against communism, fascism, socialism, and all the secular religions of the modern world, including the progressive religion of our liberal friends, the educated elite.

In putting flesh on the bones of this bare understanding of the human condition I turn to the ideas of Michael Novak in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.

In Spirit Novak develops the idea I call the Greater Separation of Powers. There are three differentiated sectors in modern society: the political, the economic, and the moral/cultural. They are and ought to be separate and individual centers of power, and need to be separate and independent of each other. Each has its power, and each is checked and balanced by the jealous critique of the other sectors. But no one sector should ever obtain dominance over the others, and no two sectors should be allowed to gang up on the third sector.

Viewing our society through the lens of the Greater Separation of Powers we can see that our society suffers from three major diseases.

The first I call The Rape of Honor. It is a disease of the moral/cultural sector. In his book Honor: A History, James Bowman begins by defining honor. He says that, in men, it is bravery, the courage to stand in line with your brethren and not run away in the face of danger. In women, it is chastity, the reputation for right action, that is, the good opinion of other women. In our society we have allowed a sustained attack on these two anchors of right living, and the more that people allow their lives to deviate from the practice of honor the more their lives wither and decay.

The second disease I call The Weight of Government. It is a disease of the political sector. Our governments in the world today are too big, too powerful, too ineffective, and too bossy. “It’s the spending, stupid,” you might say. And if you don’t believe me, go to usgovernmentspending.com. Big government infantilizes us, and subsidizes the Rape of Honor, because people without honor are people who cannot live outside the sheltered liberal plantation of big government.

The third disease I call The Sweating of Business. It is a pollution of the economic sector by the political and moral/cultural sectors. Back in the 19th century, everyone knows, the world was full of sweatshops that worked people long hours for low pay and no benefits. Well, today, businessmen and women are like the sweatshop workers of old. The political sector uses business like a piggy bank, and the moral/cultural sector uses business like a punching bag. The other two sectors have ganged up on business to humiliate it and to reduce its reputation and its power.

Our conservative destiny to to cure these three diseases of the body politics, and right three great wrongs. We must rise up to end the degradation and the violence of the Rape of Honor, to reform and remove the great Weight of Government, and to liberate our Sweating Businesses.

It’s not that complicated, now, is it?

A Great Day for America

Yesterday the voters of the United States elected their first non-white president. Although I wouldn’t exactly say that there has been a racial “barrier” to the presidency as our liberal friends seem to think today is an historic moment, a marker that says that the old tribal ways of the world are slowly dissolving.

At this moment on November 5, the New York Times shows that President-elect Obama is leading by 349 to 162 votes in the Electoral College. In the popular vote he leads by 63.0 million votes to 55.8 million for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). That’s 53.0 percent to 47.0 percent. It’s a solid victory for Sen. Obama.

It’s also a solid victory for Democrats as they increase their majority in the US Senate to 56-44 (including three seats in which Republicans are leading) and 252-173 (with 10 undecided) in the House of Representatives.

For Democrats the eight years of frustration as they railed against the illegitimate or unintelligent President Bush have been redeemed with a return to power. And it looks like it is First and Ten for Democrats as the financial markets signal an end to the meltdown. So now they’ll have the opportunity to complete the welfare state with a government takeover of health care.

But this election is also the best of all possible worlds for Republicans. Sen. Obama won the presidency witha solid win, but not a landslide. Democrats have made gains in the Senate, but nowhere near a filibuster-proof 60 seats. And 22 Senate Democrats will be up for reelection in 2012.

The Duke of Wellington is the guy to look to at a time like this. The great test of a general, he wrote, is “to know when to retreat, and to dare to do it.” Republicans today have been beaten in battle. The challenge now is to dare to retreat and get the exhausted troops to a safe stronghold. With a good retreat we can return to the political battlefield in two or four years refreshed, retrained, and eager to win.