There is one phrase in the English language that I absolutely despise. I mean, I reeeeaaallly hate it. Can't stand it. Makes my skin crawl whenever I hear it.
And it's not "Last Call".
That offending phrase is "You just can't say those things!"
It's usually a phrase that is used when something controversial--but true or reasonable--is stated in a public forum. It is the epitome of Political Correctness--a retort indicating that while the "offending" comment might have some validity, it's still a comment that somehow shouldn't enter into public debate as it's just too "offensive". It is usually generated by the unspoken notion that it is better to be polite and inoffensive in public debate as opposed to being truthful.
Suppose you're having a conversation with a group of friends, and you say "There's more violent crime in poor, black areas than their are in the suburbs". You're likely to get at least one person in the group to pipe up with the "You just can't say that!" phrase. They won't dispell your point--anybody who would attempt to do so simply could not be taken seriously in light of what human beings see and observe every day--but there is something about that particular piece of truth that doesn't jive with the worldview that they subscribe to, and as such, they cannot tolerate that type of fact into the discussion.
National Public Radio perpetrated perhaps the biggest "You just can't say that!" moment of all time by firing Juan Williams for his comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. Williams "controversially" said that he gets nervous or worried when he goes on an airplane and sees other people wearing Muslim garb.
Well, Duh! After 9/11 who among us doesn't do a double-take when seeing these kind of people in an airport or on a bus?
However, NPR evidently decided that Williams didn't do a suitable job of pretending that the threat of Muslim Terrorism doesn't exist, the way that NPR wants their employees to do so. In the PC world of NPR, the fact that Williams had a reasonable reaction to seeing people in an airport wearing Muslim garb, and dared to be truthful and admit it, was somehow beyond the bounds of good taste. Likewise, I've heard many people since that time say that you just can't say what Williams said, though they would admit that his reaction was somewhat natural and understandable.
Are you fucking serious?
Williams never impuned Muslims as a whole in his comments (and in fact, later in the interview, cautioned Bill O'Reilly that we as a nation should be careful not to view all Muslims in the same vein--a statement that I don't exactly agree with Williams on). All he said was that, after the events of 9/11--when, might I remind you, WE WERE ATTACKED BY RADICAL MUSLIMS--he gets a tad nervous when seeing Muslims on a plane. He didn't say he interferes with them, or that he takes any action against them, or that they shouldn't fly, just that he is a bit more "aware" of them than he might have been previously.
Nobody is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists--but it is clear, based on recent history, that there is a percentage of them that are. We've also learned that it doesn't take many radical Muslims to cause large amounts of damage (remember Ft. Hood? All done by only one radical Muslim). Therefore it is only logical that a human being who is concious of his own safety would give an extra look towards those who may potentially be among a group that would pose a threat--particularly when in a vulnerable environment such as an airplane.
So it's certainly reasonable that one would take extra precautions with this group of people when you consider the events of the last nine years (and longer if you count the destruction that they have wroght worldwide). The stand of NPR (and those who agree with their decision) gives the appearance that we are to ignore the threat of radical Muslims, by forcing us to "pretend" that such a threat doesn't exist, or is, at worst, minimal.
It is my view that we can't fully address and and solve the problem of radical Islam (or many other problems for that matter) if we are not allowed to honestly discuss them--with no restrictions placed on what we say for "political correctness". See #10 on the CWG list of key Conservative concepts--"The truth hurts, but that's ok." In other words, ignoring an issue, or refusing to acknowledge it because doing so would force us to overturn the unrealistic worldview of those who naively believe that human beings of all races, religions, and nationalities can somehow live in peace (World History shows us that this is, indeed, impossible), will only lead to more problems, and the issue will remain unsolved.
If you have a relative with a drug problem, does insisting that nobody mention it make it go away? Of course not. If you are having financial problems, do they get solved by never looking at your bank statements? Certainly not. It should go without saying--but I suppose it doesn't--that problems cannot be solved when they are ignored. Those problems just fester, grow, and become unmanageable if they are not attacked at first site.
I'm going to say something now that will offend many of you Liberals who read this blog (and I know you're out there): Radical Islam is a problem in America and the World at large. It is not a philosophy to be understood or contained, it is not the result of any group of people having a legitimate gripe with the United States or Western Culture, and it is not a result of the favorite buzzword of the Left--"unfairness". These people hate our culture and our nation, have already attacked us multiple times, and have made it clear that they intend to keep attacking. We must do all we can--on a personal level as well as on a national security front--to address this problem and eliminate it. Our survival depends upon it.
There is never a time where Americans should sacrifice their safety and security merely for abstract and high-minded concepts like "fairness" and "understanding". If protecting our safety crosses the line into bigotry or even racism, then so be it. I hope the American Left can learn this lesson before their inaction results in the demise of us all.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Rebellion of the Responsible--How the "$75 Tennessee Housfire" points to a changing attitude regarding "Safety Net" government
First, before we get into the topic at hand in this post, a bit of housecleaning: As you may be aware, I'm a bit new to this "blogging" thing--so I'm learning what I'm doing as I go. As you likely are aware, comments on this blog are moderated by yours truly (only for the reason that I don't want this to turn into the typical AOL comments section filled with nothing of consequence). Tonight, when I logged in, I noticed a comment waiting for moderation that I had somehow missed for nearly a month. This is my fault, as I didn't notice the comment waiting for moderation, and I take full responsibility for the oversight. I assure you, faithful readers, that this shall not happen again. The comment has been published (It was in response to the "Gays and Kiss Cams" post), along with my response to it. My sincere apologies, particularly to the poster who originally made the comment...this type of oversight on my part shall not happen again, so sayeth the CWG!!!
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Sarah Palin Conundrum--can we learn from Christine O'Donnell?
I have often thought that the 2012 Presidential Campaign began precisely at 10:57 PM on November 4, 2008, which was the precise moment that the 2008 election was called for Barack Obama. From that moment onward, all poltical activity in this nation--every speech, every debate, every bill, every congressional primary, every governors race, every soundbite, every news report on every network, every book that has been written, every newspaper article, and every poltical blog post (including mine), and every debate over a kitchen table or a neighborhood bar--has been a pawn in the chess game of November 2012. So with that in mind, it is understandable that we would look at the Christine O'Donnell situation in Delaware (one of the most interesting poltical stories I've seen) and see if we could draw some inferences towards 2012.
The biggest story of the O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary ended up being the debate over "pragmaticism vs. ideology" that everybody up to and including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove ended up getting involved in. The Republican primary in Delaware was the classic case of principled Conservative outsider who has little chance of winning the general election (at least as far as conventional wisdom would be concerned) vs. the Moderate insider who--for all of his faults (including voting for impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush)--has a better chance (again, in terms of conventional wisdom) against a Democratic candidate who is, of all things, a self-described Marxist. O'Donnell (the outsider, and darling of true Conservatives and Tea Party members) is the more Conservative candidate, but Mike Castle has the "better chance" of winning the general election (or so we were told). Therefore, there were voices--pretty loud voices--within the GOP making the argument that we must vote for Castle in order to insure a Republican Congressional majority.
At that point, the philosophical question of "victory vs. ideology" was raised. Should Conservatives sacrifice some of their Conservatism only to win elections? My view was that the answer to the question is a clear "No!" To many in the Conservative movement--myself included--the Big Tent/Go along to Get Along/Appeal to Everybody/Typical Polticians who have plagued the GOP for the last 20 years are a significant part of the problems that America faces, nearly as much so as the Democratic Party. In short, the appeal to the middle is how we got candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush among many others--guys who could get elected, but couldn't (or wouldn't) advance true Conservative values in government and society. To many of us on the Right, we're sick of hollow victories by moderates who tell us what we want to hear at campaign time, only to reach across the aisle once they are in office and stab us (and the American People) in the back.
In other words, we are no longer interested in a "Republican" majority if the only way we can get it is to put "Spineless Moderates" in office who will spend their entire term undercutting the majority of what we stand for. In a race between one of those "Rinos" and a Liberal Democrat, it's pretty much "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
So the voices of the growing Conservative movement was clear in Delaware--we're willing to back the more Conservative candidate, even if we potentially have to sacrifice a short-term goal of winning an election. We're in it for the long haul, focusing on the long-term goal of getting our nation back onto the right track financially, philisophically, and morally, rather than the short-term goals of winning an election.
In the wake of the Delaware primary and the ensuing questions of "vicrtory vs. ideology", I realized that I needed to re-think some positions I had taken on a potential Presidential run by Sarah Palin in 2012. Previously, in converstions I've had with various people as well as on some message boards, I had stated that while I feel that Sarah Palin would do the best job as President of any potential candidates that are currently out there, I have doubts that she could win the election. Therefore, I had stated that the GOP really needs to look in another direction for their 2012 candidate. I arrived at this conclusion through a combination of sheer mathematics, an understanding of human psychology, and good old-fashioned common sense. We all are aware that Obama won in 2008 based mainly off of the huge turnout that he gained within some key groups--and I feel he will have a difficult time replicating this same level of turnout in the same key areas. Obama won in 2008 because of turnout among urban voters, youth voters, and suburban middle-class white voters. Of those three groups, I believe Obama will have some difficulty with two of them in 2012, barring anything unforseen and drastic. Obama will certainly win the urban vote as strongly--and with nearly as much turnout--as he had in 2008..so I think we can concede that group of voters to him. However, I don't think he will be able to inspire the near cult-like following from the youth voters as he did in 2008. He'll win them in terms of percentage, but I don't think he'll get the high level of turnout that he had before--mainly because some youth voters will see through the sham that his 2008 campaign was, others will (through some life experience) will determine that Liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be and switch their poltical allegiances, and still others will be so dissapointed that the "rainbows and unicorns" promised by the Obama 2008 campaign never came about, and they'll simply stay home. Likewise with the suburban whites--many within this group turned out in 2008 because of a combination of restlessness with "business as usual" government, and the appeal of a "historic" election. However, in 2012, Obama can't play the "historic election of the First Black President" card again--and all of those votes he got that were for that reason alone will have to be re-earned. Many of those within this group who voted for Obama out of some sense of vague "Change" are now having buyers remorse, and don't like the "Change" that they've sen (in particular, Obamacare). Therefore, I can't imagine Obama getting large turnout in his favor from this group as he had in 2008.
So as you can see, Obama cannot win an election with low or moderate voter turnout. With that in mind--and understanding that it would be a herculean task for Obama to replicate the huge voter turnout that he inspired in 2008, even in the best of circumstances--2012 should be an election that is there for GOP taking. The key is to keep the huge voter turnout on the Democratic side from taking root, which shouldn't be terribly hard given the current infighting, apathy, and dissapointment that we see in the American Left.
And this is what brings us to the Sarah Palin Conundrum--my one misgiving about Sarah Palin is that the American Left (and a good deal of the Independants) hate her so much that I fear they will come out to vote against her, when they might not come out to vote otherwise. Despite the fact that Sarah would make a better President than any other current GOP candidate out there, I have always feared that she would have the most difficult time winning, as she might inspire higher turnout from those who would vote for "anybody but Sarah". As a result, I've said throughout the last several months that we on the Right should concentrate on potential candidates other than Sarah.
However, in the light of the Christine O'Donnell race, I'm starting to re-think this position. Should I not back Palin simply because of fears of "electablity", despite believing that she is the best possible candidate? If so, am I falling into the same trap that GOP leadership was trying to lead Conservative into in Delaware? Don't get me wrong, I want Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012 (Hell, I'd prefer to have him run out of the country period--but I'll take "out of the White House"). However, in my haste to end the tyrannical reign of "King Barack I", I may have overlooked the possibility of a Moderate Republican gaining the office in 2012. Would this be much better than an Obama second term? I'm not sure that it would be.
The constant gaffes of Obama and the Left over the last two years have provided Conservatives with a great opportunity to not only re-take power, but more importantly the opportunity to re-educate and re-acquaint the American people with the Conservative poltical philosophy, so that it might take root, grow, and prosper for decades long beyond the 2012 election. Now, if a truly Conservative candidate emerges who is more "electable" than Sarah Palin, then I believe we should go that direction with the GOP nomination. However, if no such candidate emerges, then I no longer feel we should "accept" a moderate candidate just to insure a 2012 win. It was the moderate Republicans who had nearly as much to do with the mess our nation is in as the Democrats did--letting them back into office would be almost as big of a mistake as allowing a second term for Obama. If Sarah Palin turns out to be the only "ideologically pure" Conservative out there, then we must get behind her, and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure she wins, even if it is more of an uphill climb to get her there.
Being a "Republican" is no longer good enough for America. An American President must be Conservative above all else...otherwise they are not fit to serve, regardless of if an (R) or a (D) is at the end of their name.
The biggest story of the O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary ended up being the debate over "pragmaticism vs. ideology" that everybody up to and including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove ended up getting involved in. The Republican primary in Delaware was the classic case of principled Conservative outsider who has little chance of winning the general election (at least as far as conventional wisdom would be concerned) vs. the Moderate insider who--for all of his faults (including voting for impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush)--has a better chance (again, in terms of conventional wisdom) against a Democratic candidate who is, of all things, a self-described Marxist. O'Donnell (the outsider, and darling of true Conservatives and Tea Party members) is the more Conservative candidate, but Mike Castle has the "better chance" of winning the general election (or so we were told). Therefore, there were voices--pretty loud voices--within the GOP making the argument that we must vote for Castle in order to insure a Republican Congressional majority.
At that point, the philosophical question of "victory vs. ideology" was raised. Should Conservatives sacrifice some of their Conservatism only to win elections? My view was that the answer to the question is a clear "No!" To many in the Conservative movement--myself included--the Big Tent/Go along to Get Along/Appeal to Everybody/Typical Polticians who have plagued the GOP for the last 20 years are a significant part of the problems that America faces, nearly as much so as the Democratic Party. In short, the appeal to the middle is how we got candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush among many others--guys who could get elected, but couldn't (or wouldn't) advance true Conservative values in government and society. To many of us on the Right, we're sick of hollow victories by moderates who tell us what we want to hear at campaign time, only to reach across the aisle once they are in office and stab us (and the American People) in the back.
In other words, we are no longer interested in a "Republican" majority if the only way we can get it is to put "Spineless Moderates" in office who will spend their entire term undercutting the majority of what we stand for. In a race between one of those "Rinos" and a Liberal Democrat, it's pretty much "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
So the voices of the growing Conservative movement was clear in Delaware--we're willing to back the more Conservative candidate, even if we potentially have to sacrifice a short-term goal of winning an election. We're in it for the long haul, focusing on the long-term goal of getting our nation back onto the right track financially, philisophically, and morally, rather than the short-term goals of winning an election.
In the wake of the Delaware primary and the ensuing questions of "vicrtory vs. ideology", I realized that I needed to re-think some positions I had taken on a potential Presidential run by Sarah Palin in 2012. Previously, in converstions I've had with various people as well as on some message boards, I had stated that while I feel that Sarah Palin would do the best job as President of any potential candidates that are currently out there, I have doubts that she could win the election. Therefore, I had stated that the GOP really needs to look in another direction for their 2012 candidate. I arrived at this conclusion through a combination of sheer mathematics, an understanding of human psychology, and good old-fashioned common sense. We all are aware that Obama won in 2008 based mainly off of the huge turnout that he gained within some key groups--and I feel he will have a difficult time replicating this same level of turnout in the same key areas. Obama won in 2008 because of turnout among urban voters, youth voters, and suburban middle-class white voters. Of those three groups, I believe Obama will have some difficulty with two of them in 2012, barring anything unforseen and drastic. Obama will certainly win the urban vote as strongly--and with nearly as much turnout--as he had in 2008..so I think we can concede that group of voters to him. However, I don't think he will be able to inspire the near cult-like following from the youth voters as he did in 2008. He'll win them in terms of percentage, but I don't think he'll get the high level of turnout that he had before--mainly because some youth voters will see through the sham that his 2008 campaign was, others will (through some life experience) will determine that Liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be and switch their poltical allegiances, and still others will be so dissapointed that the "rainbows and unicorns" promised by the Obama 2008 campaign never came about, and they'll simply stay home. Likewise with the suburban whites--many within this group turned out in 2008 because of a combination of restlessness with "business as usual" government, and the appeal of a "historic" election. However, in 2012, Obama can't play the "historic election of the First Black President" card again--and all of those votes he got that were for that reason alone will have to be re-earned. Many of those within this group who voted for Obama out of some sense of vague "Change" are now having buyers remorse, and don't like the "Change" that they've sen (in particular, Obamacare). Therefore, I can't imagine Obama getting large turnout in his favor from this group as he had in 2008.
So as you can see, Obama cannot win an election with low or moderate voter turnout. With that in mind--and understanding that it would be a herculean task for Obama to replicate the huge voter turnout that he inspired in 2008, even in the best of circumstances--2012 should be an election that is there for GOP taking. The key is to keep the huge voter turnout on the Democratic side from taking root, which shouldn't be terribly hard given the current infighting, apathy, and dissapointment that we see in the American Left.
And this is what brings us to the Sarah Palin Conundrum--my one misgiving about Sarah Palin is that the American Left (and a good deal of the Independants) hate her so much that I fear they will come out to vote against her, when they might not come out to vote otherwise. Despite the fact that Sarah would make a better President than any other current GOP candidate out there, I have always feared that she would have the most difficult time winning, as she might inspire higher turnout from those who would vote for "anybody but Sarah". As a result, I've said throughout the last several months that we on the Right should concentrate on potential candidates other than Sarah.
However, in the light of the Christine O'Donnell race, I'm starting to re-think this position. Should I not back Palin simply because of fears of "electablity", despite believing that she is the best possible candidate? If so, am I falling into the same trap that GOP leadership was trying to lead Conservative into in Delaware? Don't get me wrong, I want Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012 (Hell, I'd prefer to have him run out of the country period--but I'll take "out of the White House"). However, in my haste to end the tyrannical reign of "King Barack I", I may have overlooked the possibility of a Moderate Republican gaining the office in 2012. Would this be much better than an Obama second term? I'm not sure that it would be.
The constant gaffes of Obama and the Left over the last two years have provided Conservatives with a great opportunity to not only re-take power, but more importantly the opportunity to re-educate and re-acquaint the American people with the Conservative poltical philosophy, so that it might take root, grow, and prosper for decades long beyond the 2012 election. Now, if a truly Conservative candidate emerges who is more "electable" than Sarah Palin, then I believe we should go that direction with the GOP nomination. However, if no such candidate emerges, then I no longer feel we should "accept" a moderate candidate just to insure a 2012 win. It was the moderate Republicans who had nearly as much to do with the mess our nation is in as the Democrats did--letting them back into office would be almost as big of a mistake as allowing a second term for Obama. If Sarah Palin turns out to be the only "ideologically pure" Conservative out there, then we must get behind her, and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure she wins, even if it is more of an uphill climb to get her there.
Being a "Republican" is no longer good enough for America. An American President must be Conservative above all else...otherwise they are not fit to serve, regardless of if an (R) or a (D) is at the end of their name.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
On Gay's, Lesbians, Kiss Cam's, and Sporting Events
If you've been anywhere near the St. Louis area in the last 24 hours, you've undoubtedly heard the controversy (fueled mainly by the fact that it was, indeed, a slow news day): Gays and Lesbians feel they are being discriminated against at St. Louis Cardinal baseball games because they aren't included in the "Kiss Cam" that goes around prodding unsuspecting couples into not-so-spontaneous liplocks at dull points in the game.
I'll get to my opinion about this in a second, but first, some full disclosure: I generally don't have much love for any of the bizarro scoreboard stuff that we get force-fed at your typical American sporting event these days. I don't need a scoreboard to tell me to "get loud" or to "pump it up". I don't really care which of the three hats the animated baseball is hiding under. I don't need the Jumbotron to "entertain" me...after all, that's what the damn game is for, isn't it? Over in England, soccer fans don't have to be prompted by a scoreboard to begin singing "In The Liverpool Slums"--they do so out of pure passion,(and also, because there's a lot of truth to the song as well!)
As an aside, here's a site with many anti-Liverpool soccer chants...you never know when these might come in handy: http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-songs-liverpool.htm
As you might be able to ascertain, the concept of the "Kiss Cam" itself isn't exactly something that I would consider a necessary (or even entertaining) part of any sporting event. I paid $80 to scream at referees, watch the Rams offensive line miss blocks, witness Blaine Gabbert scramble into trouble, or see the Cardinals blow another insurmountable lead. I'm not paying that money to watch complete strangers (and mainly unattractive ones at that) slobber all over each other.
So I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended) as far as "Kiss Cams" go to begin with. Therefore, you can probably imagine that I'm even less inclined to sympathize with the comments of a few gay people that they are being "excluded" in some way. The argument on their side is that they should be allowed the priveledge of appearing on the Cam just as straight people are (wait...appearing on that thing is a "priviledge"? I'd put good money on the statement that at least half of the people appearing on the damn thing would rather not show up on it!) Here's the problem I have with that idea--the Kiss Cam (and assorted other scoreboard crap) is ostensibly presented as a part of the overall entertainment at the stadium...never mind that it really isn't all that entertaining, the idea is that it is supposed to be entertaining. Therefore, one would think that the emphasis would be on presenting "entertainment" that would be palatable to the majority of people in the stadium. I hate to break this to all the gay/lesbian/transmorphified/whatever groups, but the majority of the people in the stadium *don't* want to see you smooching (heck, a good number of us don't want to see the straight people doing it either), therefore, since it wouldn't be palatable entertainment for the paying customers, you can't expect to be "included".
Besides, what do they think would actually happen if the Kiss Cam did catch a gay couple in mid liplock? The crowd would react one of two ways, neither of which would be what the Gay Community wants: If the smoochers were two guys or two unattractive women, the crowd would likely boo or groan. On the other hand, if the smoochers where two attractive lesbians, you'd instead hear an uproar of catcalls and other assorted testosterone-inspired comments (I'll be the guy yelling: "Take her shirt off!!!"). Would either reaction be what the Gay Community is looking for? I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong, there probably are some cities in America where such a display wouldn't be offensive to the paying cusotmers (San Fransisco for example...of course, they also serve Sushi at their sporting events, so I've lost all respect for San Francisco sporting culture right around the time that Ray "The Crippler" Stevens left town). If we're talking about one of those towns, go for it, knock yourselves out, whatever. But here in the midwest, the vast majority of people don't want to see such behavior. The Gay groups that are pushing this out here are trying to do one thing and one thing only, they want some quick publicity by trying to push something onto the public that they want no part of. Most straight people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes...but that doesn't seem to be good enough for many spokespeople in that community. They wish to force mainstream society to "accept" their behavior and change our definitions of what an acceptable family structure is. And that's where I have the problem with it all. I'd have much more respect for the Gay Community (and perhaps some empathy) if they were focused on assimilating into society...instead, they seem to be focused on changing society, and I think that's where they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Remember #8 on my list of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts": "I don't care what you do in your bedroom...but I do care whe you expose my kids to it". Gays have made the decision to live a lifestyle outside the norm of society. That's fine, I've got no problem with that. But when they try to force mainstream society to accept or appreciate that decision, then that is what cannot and should not be accepted.
I'll get to my opinion about this in a second, but first, some full disclosure: I generally don't have much love for any of the bizarro scoreboard stuff that we get force-fed at your typical American sporting event these days. I don't need a scoreboard to tell me to "get loud" or to "pump it up". I don't really care which of the three hats the animated baseball is hiding under. I don't need the Jumbotron to "entertain" me...after all, that's what the damn game is for, isn't it? Over in England, soccer fans don't have to be prompted by a scoreboard to begin singing "In The Liverpool Slums"--they do so out of pure passion,(and also, because there's a lot of truth to the song as well!)
As an aside, here's a site with many anti-Liverpool soccer chants...you never know when these might come in handy: http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-songs-liverpool.htm
As you might be able to ascertain, the concept of the "Kiss Cam" itself isn't exactly something that I would consider a necessary (or even entertaining) part of any sporting event. I paid $80 to scream at referees, watch the Rams offensive line miss blocks, witness Blaine Gabbert scramble into trouble, or see the Cardinals blow another insurmountable lead. I'm not paying that money to watch complete strangers (and mainly unattractive ones at that) slobber all over each other.
So I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended) as far as "Kiss Cams" go to begin with. Therefore, you can probably imagine that I'm even less inclined to sympathize with the comments of a few gay people that they are being "excluded" in some way. The argument on their side is that they should be allowed the priveledge of appearing on the Cam just as straight people are (wait...appearing on that thing is a "priviledge"? I'd put good money on the statement that at least half of the people appearing on the damn thing would rather not show up on it!) Here's the problem I have with that idea--the Kiss Cam (and assorted other scoreboard crap) is ostensibly presented as a part of the overall entertainment at the stadium...never mind that it really isn't all that entertaining, the idea is that it is supposed to be entertaining. Therefore, one would think that the emphasis would be on presenting "entertainment" that would be palatable to the majority of people in the stadium. I hate to break this to all the gay/lesbian/transmorphified/whatever groups, but the majority of the people in the stadium *don't* want to see you smooching (heck, a good number of us don't want to see the straight people doing it either), therefore, since it wouldn't be palatable entertainment for the paying customers, you can't expect to be "included".
Besides, what do they think would actually happen if the Kiss Cam did catch a gay couple in mid liplock? The crowd would react one of two ways, neither of which would be what the Gay Community wants: If the smoochers were two guys or two unattractive women, the crowd would likely boo or groan. On the other hand, if the smoochers where two attractive lesbians, you'd instead hear an uproar of catcalls and other assorted testosterone-inspired comments (I'll be the guy yelling: "Take her shirt off!!!"). Would either reaction be what the Gay Community is looking for? I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong, there probably are some cities in America where such a display wouldn't be offensive to the paying cusotmers (San Fransisco for example...of course, they also serve Sushi at their sporting events, so I've lost all respect for San Francisco sporting culture right around the time that Ray "The Crippler" Stevens left town). If we're talking about one of those towns, go for it, knock yourselves out, whatever. But here in the midwest, the vast majority of people don't want to see such behavior. The Gay groups that are pushing this out here are trying to do one thing and one thing only, they want some quick publicity by trying to push something onto the public that they want no part of. Most straight people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes...but that doesn't seem to be good enough for many spokespeople in that community. They wish to force mainstream society to "accept" their behavior and change our definitions of what an acceptable family structure is. And that's where I have the problem with it all. I'd have much more respect for the Gay Community (and perhaps some empathy) if they were focused on assimilating into society...instead, they seem to be focused on changing society, and I think that's where they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Remember #8 on my list of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts": "I don't care what you do in your bedroom...but I do care whe you expose my kids to it". Gays have made the decision to live a lifestyle outside the norm of society. That's fine, I've got no problem with that. But when they try to force mainstream society to accept or appreciate that decision, then that is what cannot and should not be accepted.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Who's really to blame for the lack of "diversity" in the New Right?
You hear it from the "news" media everytime there is a major Tea Party rally, or even in the case of last weekends Restoring Honor rally in Washington...the snide comments about how "white" such gatherings are. (My favorite insult from this weekend: The frequent references to the Restoring Honor rally as "Whitestock"). Setting aside the absurd notion generated by the Left that no endeavor can be seen as legitimate unless certain percentages of all ethnic groups and sexual orientations are present (one must wonder if some Liberal parents go through the guest list of their 5-year old's birthday party to make sure there is a certain percentage of black children, a certain percentage of Hispanic children, a certain percentage of Asian children, a certain percentage of Indian children, a certain percentage of gay children---wait, does that even exist?--a certain number of female children, and not too many white children. Oh, and they have to make sure there's enough cake in case an illegal immigrant children show up unannounced--after all, they're just coming by because they don't have yummy cake at their house. Of course, they could just make it easy and invite their kids actual, you know, friends...but wouldn't that be a bit culturally insensitive?), let us ask the question, Should the modern Conservatives be blamed for the lack of participation in the emerging and re-branded modern Conservative movement?
We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.
So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )
So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?
The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.
The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.
When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.
So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.
We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.
So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )
So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?
The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.
The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.
When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.
So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Key Conservative Concept #2: "Fairness" and "Equality" are not interchageable terms
The words "equality" and "fairness" are tossed around--seemingly without a second thought--by the Left in almost every speech, soundbite, and debate that they have, whatever the issue might be. Equality and fairness are laudible goals--so we are told--that should be at the center of all legislative decisions.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
CWG's Key Conservative Concept #1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
With this post we begin going through each of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts" in detail. For those of you who somehow missed my last post (Bad Reader!!!! I'm going to have to smack you with a rolled up newspaper!) here is a reminder of my 12 Key Concepts of Conservatism:
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. "Equality" and "Fairness" are not synonyms...these terms CANNOT be used interchangeably.
3. Success should be encouraged, not vilified.
4. When I choose to help somebody, it is charity. When the government forces me to "help" somebody, it is theft. Robin Hood was not someone to be admired, he was a thief to be brought to justice.
5. America is, by and large, a pretty good place. American Culture is, far and away, the greatest culture in all of human history.
6. You are your own Leader.
7. Politicians are human too--which is exactly why limited government is preferable.
8. I don't care what you do in your bedroom--but I do care when you expose my kids to it.
9. The Needs, Goals, and Desires of the individual are infinitely more important than the Needs, Goals, and Desires of any perceived "Community".
10. The truth hurts...but is beneficial for us in the long run (which is why Political Correctness is extremely destructive)
11. War is Hell...and it is also very necessary at key points in history.
12. It takes a village to raise an idiot--it takes a family to raise a child.
Today, we focus on #1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Some of you may have heard that phrase before, for others of you (namely, those of you who grew up on the East Coast...you poor, tortured souls), you likely have never heard it. Where I'm from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a common colloquilism that refers to situations where a well meaning (but generally clueless) person will make a grand effort to "improve" something that is already functioning well to begin with. It is the concept of re-building or re-working something (and usually with an end goal that is only marginally better than the status quo) that was humming along fine--putting a lot of effort into changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. The end result of these "efforts" is usually that a problem ends up being created where none existed before.
Even if you've never heard the phrase, you undoubtedly have seen situations similar to these...it could be the new, energetic boss who tries to completly re-work the department upon his arrival, despite the department being profitable and efficient before his arrival. It could be the mother-in-law who insists that the way you fix pot roast is all wrong (despite the fact that your husband actually likes your pot roast), and insists that you do it her way--which only ends up tasting like rubber. It's your buddy who thinks he can "correct" your stance at the bowling alley, even though you do better than he does in your weekly bowling league.
Since we see the destructiveness of people in everyday life trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, it stands to reason that a rationally-thinking person would not want a government that would run around "fixing" things just for the sake of taking credit for having done so. Certainly, there will be some things that are legitimately "broken" and that a government will have to address (though there is certainly plenty of debate what type of issues that the government should have a right to address versus those issues that should be of no concern to the government). However, we seem to see a consistent message from the Left that constant change is a positive, even necessary thing. In fact, the canadacy of Barack Obama was based on little more than this vague idea of "Change".
Change that is truly for the better is a good thing...but "change for no apparent reason" (which I suspect was the original Obama campaign slogan before his handlers shortened it because "poor people and young people don't like lots of words") is a destructive and horrible concept that should be avoided.
The preferred role of government could be compared to that of a good sports referee. There's an old saying among officials that "you did a good job if the game ends, and nobody remembers you". This is to say that a good official in any sport will make the calls that they must make (calling those infractions which have a direct and obvious impact on play), but should not bog down the game by calling every ticky-tack foul they see. A good official gives some leeway and "let's the boys play". In fact, in the National Hockey League, there was an old axiom that in the third period and overtime, referees would "keep the whistle in the pocket"--only calling penalties that were so egregious that they couldn't be ignored, and otherwise allowing the players to police themselves. The NHL referees knew that the game wasn't about them, it was about the players...and they wanted to make sure that those players were the determining factor in the result of the game if at all possible.
On the other hand, take this summer's World Cup soccer final between Spain and Holland. A game that was over-officiated from the start, in which the referee called every foul he saw in the first half, and issued yellow cards to nearly half of the Dutch team. And on the rare occasions that Spain would try to man up and deliver some physicality back at the Dutch, our esteemed ref was right there to interfere and keep it from happening (though, in fairness, you don't have to ask the Spanish to shy away from physical play more than once...diving pansies that Spain are). The result was a second half where both teams were walking on eggshells, more concerned with the officiating than with doing what was necessary to win the biggest prize in soccer. In the end, a tough, physical team lost because of the officiating to a side that had much less physical toughness, and who was only too eager to hide behind the referee's skirt...erm, I mean, whistle. On the Monday morning after the match, talk around water coolers the world over centered on two things: 1) Geez, was that final boring as Hell and 2) That referee just wouldn't stay the fuck out of the picture--which is why the game degenerated into a boring foul-fest.
So which style should government emulate, an old-school NHL style of allowing the players (which, in terms of society, are each and every one of us) to determine the winners and losers, or a style like that of the World Cup Final, where the referee's (or, in terms of comparison, the government's) whims are the overriding factor determining victory.
To a true Conservative, the answer is the former--we believe that most of the time, humans have the ablility to respond to and handle life's challenges without relying on the government to fight our daily battles for us. We believe that most of lifes problems are better solved by ordinary people making the decisions that are best for their longevity and livlihood (economists have a name for this phenomena...they call it the "free market"). We remember that back when we were kids, problems on the playground were not solved by running to the teacher, but instead by facing them head on and taking care of them (in other words, knock the bully on his ass one time and you don't have any more "bully problems"...but go to the teacher and you'll guarantee yourself an entire school year of ass-kickings), things really haven't changed much since then.
I don't need a government to take care of what I can take care of on my own. I don't need them to make decisions for me that I am fully capable of making. If "change" is needed in my life, I'm intelligent enough to make those changes myself, and man enough to follow through with them. I don't need a government to tell me to buy health insurance, or what to eat, or what kind of lightbulbs to buy...I'm a college graduate, I can handle those things on my own, thank you very much.
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. "Equality" and "Fairness" are not synonyms...these terms CANNOT be used interchangeably.
3. Success should be encouraged, not vilified.
4. When I choose to help somebody, it is charity. When the government forces me to "help" somebody, it is theft. Robin Hood was not someone to be admired, he was a thief to be brought to justice.
5. America is, by and large, a pretty good place. American Culture is, far and away, the greatest culture in all of human history.
6. You are your own Leader.
7. Politicians are human too--which is exactly why limited government is preferable.
8. I don't care what you do in your bedroom--but I do care when you expose my kids to it.
9. The Needs, Goals, and Desires of the individual are infinitely more important than the Needs, Goals, and Desires of any perceived "Community".
10. The truth hurts...but is beneficial for us in the long run (which is why Political Correctness is extremely destructive)
11. War is Hell...and it is also very necessary at key points in history.
12. It takes a village to raise an idiot--it takes a family to raise a child.
Today, we focus on #1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Some of you may have heard that phrase before, for others of you (namely, those of you who grew up on the East Coast...you poor, tortured souls), you likely have never heard it. Where I'm from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a common colloquilism that refers to situations where a well meaning (but generally clueless) person will make a grand effort to "improve" something that is already functioning well to begin with. It is the concept of re-building or re-working something (and usually with an end goal that is only marginally better than the status quo) that was humming along fine--putting a lot of effort into changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. The end result of these "efforts" is usually that a problem ends up being created where none existed before.
Even if you've never heard the phrase, you undoubtedly have seen situations similar to these...it could be the new, energetic boss who tries to completly re-work the department upon his arrival, despite the department being profitable and efficient before his arrival. It could be the mother-in-law who insists that the way you fix pot roast is all wrong (despite the fact that your husband actually likes your pot roast), and insists that you do it her way--which only ends up tasting like rubber. It's your buddy who thinks he can "correct" your stance at the bowling alley, even though you do better than he does in your weekly bowling league.
Since we see the destructiveness of people in everyday life trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, it stands to reason that a rationally-thinking person would not want a government that would run around "fixing" things just for the sake of taking credit for having done so. Certainly, there will be some things that are legitimately "broken" and that a government will have to address (though there is certainly plenty of debate what type of issues that the government should have a right to address versus those issues that should be of no concern to the government). However, we seem to see a consistent message from the Left that constant change is a positive, even necessary thing. In fact, the canadacy of Barack Obama was based on little more than this vague idea of "Change".
Change that is truly for the better is a good thing...but "change for no apparent reason" (which I suspect was the original Obama campaign slogan before his handlers shortened it because "poor people and young people don't like lots of words") is a destructive and horrible concept that should be avoided.
The preferred role of government could be compared to that of a good sports referee. There's an old saying among officials that "you did a good job if the game ends, and nobody remembers you". This is to say that a good official in any sport will make the calls that they must make (calling those infractions which have a direct and obvious impact on play), but should not bog down the game by calling every ticky-tack foul they see. A good official gives some leeway and "let's the boys play". In fact, in the National Hockey League, there was an old axiom that in the third period and overtime, referees would "keep the whistle in the pocket"--only calling penalties that were so egregious that they couldn't be ignored, and otherwise allowing the players to police themselves. The NHL referees knew that the game wasn't about them, it was about the players...and they wanted to make sure that those players were the determining factor in the result of the game if at all possible.
On the other hand, take this summer's World Cup soccer final between Spain and Holland. A game that was over-officiated from the start, in which the referee called every foul he saw in the first half, and issued yellow cards to nearly half of the Dutch team. And on the rare occasions that Spain would try to man up and deliver some physicality back at the Dutch, our esteemed ref was right there to interfere and keep it from happening (though, in fairness, you don't have to ask the Spanish to shy away from physical play more than once...diving pansies that Spain are). The result was a second half where both teams were walking on eggshells, more concerned with the officiating than with doing what was necessary to win the biggest prize in soccer. In the end, a tough, physical team lost because of the officiating to a side that had much less physical toughness, and who was only too eager to hide behind the referee's skirt...erm, I mean, whistle. On the Monday morning after the match, talk around water coolers the world over centered on two things: 1) Geez, was that final boring as Hell and 2) That referee just wouldn't stay the fuck out of the picture--which is why the game degenerated into a boring foul-fest.
So which style should government emulate, an old-school NHL style of allowing the players (which, in terms of society, are each and every one of us) to determine the winners and losers, or a style like that of the World Cup Final, where the referee's (or, in terms of comparison, the government's) whims are the overriding factor determining victory.
To a true Conservative, the answer is the former--we believe that most of the time, humans have the ablility to respond to and handle life's challenges without relying on the government to fight our daily battles for us. We believe that most of lifes problems are better solved by ordinary people making the decisions that are best for their longevity and livlihood (economists have a name for this phenomena...they call it the "free market"). We remember that back when we were kids, problems on the playground were not solved by running to the teacher, but instead by facing them head on and taking care of them (in other words, knock the bully on his ass one time and you don't have any more "bully problems"...but go to the teacher and you'll guarantee yourself an entire school year of ass-kickings), things really haven't changed much since then.
I don't need a government to take care of what I can take care of on my own. I don't need them to make decisions for me that I am fully capable of making. If "change" is needed in my life, I'm intelligent enough to make those changes myself, and man enough to follow through with them. I don't need a government to tell me to buy health insurance, or what to eat, or what kind of lightbulbs to buy...I'm a college graduate, I can handle those things on my own, thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)