The horrible events of last weekend in Tucson, Arizona, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords was the target of an assassination attempt. And while everybody--whatever side of the proverbial aisle they stand on--certainly hopes for the fullest of recoveries for Rep. Giffords and mourns for those that died as a result of this tragedy, we still have had some spirited debates over the last several days on issues brought up after this tragedy. What follows are my reactions and opinions on a few of these issues:
**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.
At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)
***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.
So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.
***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")
So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!
***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.
So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?
We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.
Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Your WTF Moment of 12/16/10: Harry Reid claims earmarks are "what we are supposed to do"
The WTF moment of the day is back with a doozy today. Every once in a while a crooked, career politician accidentally makes a statement that peels away the mask and gives the voter a true window into their character. Today was one of those days, as Nevada Senator (and pork purveyor extrodinairre) Harry Reid made the following comment on earmarks:
"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do."
Linky: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/reid-earmarks-are-what-were-supposed-do/
With that comment, Reid proved himself to be a relic of a (soon to be) bygone era in Congressional politics. A relic from a time in which the American People didn't pay day-to-day attention to the actions of Congress (understandible, considering that watching Congress--with all of it's procedural pomp and slow-motion legislating is about as exciting as watching the proverbial grass grow). A relic from a time when you didn't really think about your Congressman until election time, and even then you could be easily fooled by the "Well, he got that nice new Senior Center bulit" argument.
What Reid (and other like him--mainly Democrats but even some old-line Republicans) have missed is that the electorate has changed. We're actually paying attention now. Some of us (many more than in previous generations) actually pay attention to the day-to-day activities of Congress...boring though that might be. We are much more aware of the dire financial situation our nation faces than our elected "leaders" give us credit for. As a result, fewer Americans are swayed by the simple dangling of pork in front of our faces. When it comes to Congress, previous generations of Americans seemed to have the attitude of "They should cut everyone's spending except for my district!". But more and more Americans of this generation are realizing that--in order to regain our financial footing--we must reject senseless spending wherever it exists...even if it is in our own backyard.
P.J. O'Rourke made the comment that November 2 wasn't an election, but instead a restraining order. A very loud, abrupt, and unquestionable message was sent to Washington six weeks ago--the old style of politics doesn't cut it anymore. We see through the bread and circuses routine that Congress has relied upon for generations. We realize there are major problems facing this country, and we will no longer be distracted by a few crumbs thrown to us by our Representatives and Senators.
But Reid and his ilk didn't seem to hear that message. Instead, they are stuck in the past--believing that obtaining "federal funds" will buy our loyalty. The problem is that We The People now see through the charade--we realize that "federal funds" does not equal "free government money"--that's OUR money, dammit! Remember that scene from "Rounders" where Mike McDermott beats Teddy KGB in the big poker game to win back the $15,000 he'd lost to him years before? After fuming for a bit, KGB settles down and says "It doesn't matter...after all...I'm paying you with your own money!" That's exactly what Congress had done for years, and Reid and his kind would like to keep doing--buy our loyalty and blindness by paying us with our own money.
What? You haven't seen "Rounders"? Where in the blue Hell have you been? Only the greatest poker movie of all time...
Anyhow, the people have spoken, and they are flat out against earmarks. We see behind the curtain and we understand the dog and pony show that Reid and many other "Career Congressmen" have perpetuated for no other reason to stay in power for decades on end. Now, will the end of earmarks resolve the massive financial issues our nation faces? Certainly not--you'd have to tackle "mandatory spending" to really make a dent in what we owe (such as Social Security)--but those earmarks are nothing to sneeze at either. And more and more Americans are realizing (many from personal experience) that when you're in debt, every dime is important. For Harry Reid, like so many Congressmen (many of which are thankfully leaving Washington for good at the end of this session), that lesson has gone right over their heads.
The American people want a different kind of Congress and a different kind of government. "Politics as Usual" has failed miserably over the second half of the 20th century, and the polticians who continue to do business in the manner of that bygone era will find their days numbered.
"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do."
Linky: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/reid-earmarks-are-what-were-supposed-do/
With that comment, Reid proved himself to be a relic of a (soon to be) bygone era in Congressional politics. A relic from a time in which the American People didn't pay day-to-day attention to the actions of Congress (understandible, considering that watching Congress--with all of it's procedural pomp and slow-motion legislating is about as exciting as watching the proverbial grass grow). A relic from a time when you didn't really think about your Congressman until election time, and even then you could be easily fooled by the "Well, he got that nice new Senior Center bulit" argument.
What Reid (and other like him--mainly Democrats but even some old-line Republicans) have missed is that the electorate has changed. We're actually paying attention now. Some of us (many more than in previous generations) actually pay attention to the day-to-day activities of Congress...boring though that might be. We are much more aware of the dire financial situation our nation faces than our elected "leaders" give us credit for. As a result, fewer Americans are swayed by the simple dangling of pork in front of our faces. When it comes to Congress, previous generations of Americans seemed to have the attitude of "They should cut everyone's spending except for my district!". But more and more Americans of this generation are realizing that--in order to regain our financial footing--we must reject senseless spending wherever it exists...even if it is in our own backyard.
P.J. O'Rourke made the comment that November 2 wasn't an election, but instead a restraining order. A very loud, abrupt, and unquestionable message was sent to Washington six weeks ago--the old style of politics doesn't cut it anymore. We see through the bread and circuses routine that Congress has relied upon for generations. We realize there are major problems facing this country, and we will no longer be distracted by a few crumbs thrown to us by our Representatives and Senators.
But Reid and his ilk didn't seem to hear that message. Instead, they are stuck in the past--believing that obtaining "federal funds" will buy our loyalty. The problem is that We The People now see through the charade--we realize that "federal funds" does not equal "free government money"--that's OUR money, dammit! Remember that scene from "Rounders" where Mike McDermott beats Teddy KGB in the big poker game to win back the $15,000 he'd lost to him years before? After fuming for a bit, KGB settles down and says "It doesn't matter...after all...I'm paying you with your own money!" That's exactly what Congress had done for years, and Reid and his kind would like to keep doing--buy our loyalty and blindness by paying us with our own money.
What? You haven't seen "Rounders"? Where in the blue Hell have you been? Only the greatest poker movie of all time...
Anyhow, the people have spoken, and they are flat out against earmarks. We see behind the curtain and we understand the dog and pony show that Reid and many other "Career Congressmen" have perpetuated for no other reason to stay in power for decades on end. Now, will the end of earmarks resolve the massive financial issues our nation faces? Certainly not--you'd have to tackle "mandatory spending" to really make a dent in what we owe (such as Social Security)--but those earmarks are nothing to sneeze at either. And more and more Americans are realizing (many from personal experience) that when you're in debt, every dime is important. For Harry Reid, like so many Congressmen (many of which are thankfully leaving Washington for good at the end of this session), that lesson has gone right over their heads.
The American people want a different kind of Congress and a different kind of government. "Politics as Usual" has failed miserably over the second half of the 20th century, and the polticians who continue to do business in the manner of that bygone era will find their days numbered.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Sarah Palin's Perfect Job: RNC Chairperson!
One of the curses of being a genius and a highly developed analyst of politics and culture, as I am, is that upon occasion I will say something incredibly brilliant that only a few people will ever hear or see. This is the case with what I am about to post--recently on a message board at www.wrestlingclassics.com I posted something that I feel is an incredible idea that could be hugely beneficial for the Conservative movement and the 2012 Presidential election. The problem is that only that particular message board got to see this ingenius idea, and let's face it, I'm pretty sure the movers and shakers of the GOP are not hanging out on a message board that discusses classic pro wrestling. With that in mind, I'm going to bring this brilliant idea over to this blog for the world to see.
Incidentally, if you are a fan of old-school, classic professional wrestling, there is simply no better place on the internet to discuss and learn about this topic than www.wrestlingclassics.com . You can find an answer to practically any question you have about classic wrestling, and even interact with some performers from the "glory years" of the sport of kings.
Ok, back to the topic at hand--many of us are Sarah Palin supporters, but realize that she could have a difficult time if she ran for President in 2012. It's not that Obama is popular (far from it), but there are many people out there who--for whatever reason--absolutely despise Sarah Palin. It's not just that they dislike Sarah--it's that they absolutely hate her. Irrational hatred to the point that some of them will shoot their TV with a gun when her daughter so much as appears on the screen! Now, an analysis of this hatred would make for quite a post of it's own, but for this discussion, let's just acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the American public who hates Sarah Palin and would take action (for example, showing up at a voting booth) to prevent her from being succesful.
Now look on the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won the Presidency on the heels of unprecedented turnout from "non-traditional" and "casual" voters. By any measure, the "rock star" status has worn thin since his election, and all of those rainbows and lollipops that he promised to those non-traditional voters who just didn't know any better haven't come through. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Obama won't be able to win on the same "smoke an mirrors, style over substance, massive non-traditional turnout" that he had in 2008. It's not that those voters would vote for the GOP candidate--I suspect that very few of them would "flip"--but that a certain dissatisfaction and malaise is likely to set in among voters who thought Obama would be the man that would change the world. So if those voters don't get fired up and turn out in droves, how does Obama win in 2012?
He doesn't.
So if it's clear that Obama can't win without a surge of casual and non-traditional voters (as he did in 2008), then one can begin to see the possible issues with a Palin candidacy. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is a magnficent public servant and ambassador of Conservatism, and I deeply admire her. But speaking strictly in terms of electoral strategy, the level of hatred that many of those casual and non-traditional voters have for her could drive voter turnout for Obama where it otherwise wouldn't have been. I'm not saying Sarah can't beat Obama--I think she could, but it would be one hell of a fight.
I am however saying that there could be another solution that could all but gurantee a Conservative Presidential win in 2012. From my post on www.wrestlingclassics.com , here is my proposal for that solution:
"I think I've mentioned it here before, but you know what would be the *perfect* job for Sarah?
RNC Chairperson.
Before all of you spit your adult beverages all over your computer screen, think this through: What are the most important functions of a party chairperson? Raising funds and appealing to the base. There is, of course, some responsibilities in terms of agenda and strategy for the party--but it appears to me that the biggest (or at least the most highly visible) part of the job is 1) Convicing the base that the candidate isn't "leaving them behind" and 2) Convincing that base to open their checkbooks and financially back that candidate.
Nobody appeals to the base of the GOP like Sarah does, and she's among the best fundraisers we have (maybe Karl Rove is slightly ahead of her at this point, but I'd say she's right up there with him). A party chairman is there to rally the base of the party while the candidate is out there trying to rally everyone else--and it's role that Sarah's made for!
You know who else has done a pretty good job in a similar role? Howard Dean. And as scary as it might be to say this, there are some similarities between Dean and Palin:
**Dean appeals to the "true believers" of the Left as much as Sarah does to the true believers of the Right (perhaps only Al Gore gets more love from the committed Left than Dean does)
**Both scare the pants of the opposite party and much of the centrists (making it more difficult for either to win on a national level)
**Both can "fire up" the base and get people to open the checkbooks.
**The media will give both of them all the airtime they want, because they know that either one of them will be good for a juicy soundbite virtually on command.
And the best part--all of the "Palin Haters" who would come out strictly to vote against her would likely stay home. After all, *she* wouldn't be running for anything, and would have no real power (at least in a governing sense), so attacks on her--a mere party chairperson--during a Presidential campaign would fall flat. Seems to me that you'd get the best that Sarah has to offer (ability to fire up and appeal to the base, ability to raise money, and perhaps some efforts at nudging the party platform more to the Right) with none of the negatives (all of the nitwits and crazies who think Sarah is "evil incarnate" would likely stay home--and as I've said a million times, low or moderate voter turnout would work against Obama regardless of who the opponent is).
I do think Palin would make a magnificent President, and would support her wholeheartedly if it came down to her or if she were the only truly Conservative candidate. However, if we can find another True Conservative to run (and that might be a rather large "if") then Sarah as RNC Chairperson might be the brilliant move that puts it over the top."
Now, the key to all of this is for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012 while Sarah handles the fundraising and firing up of the base. As I've said before, in 2012, I will back the most Conservative candidate, I will not back a moderate simply because they have an (R) after their name. But with that having been said, a Conservative candidate--even one with relatively little experience--could beat Obama in 2012 if our poltical machine is humming along at it's highest efficiency. And I think Sarah Palin could be the perfect person for the job.
Unfortunately, the GOP establishment hasn't figured this out (no big surprise there), and they continue the charade of Micheal Steele desperately trying to hang onto his job while several others--who don't have the recognition or potential for grabbing donations as Palin does--challenge him for it. It has become a common theme of the GOP over the last 20 years: Yet another brilliant idea going to waste.
Incidentally, if you are a fan of old-school, classic professional wrestling, there is simply no better place on the internet to discuss and learn about this topic than www.wrestlingclassics.com . You can find an answer to practically any question you have about classic wrestling, and even interact with some performers from the "glory years" of the sport of kings.
Ok, back to the topic at hand--many of us are Sarah Palin supporters, but realize that she could have a difficult time if she ran for President in 2012. It's not that Obama is popular (far from it), but there are many people out there who--for whatever reason--absolutely despise Sarah Palin. It's not just that they dislike Sarah--it's that they absolutely hate her. Irrational hatred to the point that some of them will shoot their TV with a gun when her daughter so much as appears on the screen! Now, an analysis of this hatred would make for quite a post of it's own, but for this discussion, let's just acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the American public who hates Sarah Palin and would take action (for example, showing up at a voting booth) to prevent her from being succesful.
Now look on the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won the Presidency on the heels of unprecedented turnout from "non-traditional" and "casual" voters. By any measure, the "rock star" status has worn thin since his election, and all of those rainbows and lollipops that he promised to those non-traditional voters who just didn't know any better haven't come through. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Obama won't be able to win on the same "smoke an mirrors, style over substance, massive non-traditional turnout" that he had in 2008. It's not that those voters would vote for the GOP candidate--I suspect that very few of them would "flip"--but that a certain dissatisfaction and malaise is likely to set in among voters who thought Obama would be the man that would change the world. So if those voters don't get fired up and turn out in droves, how does Obama win in 2012?
He doesn't.
So if it's clear that Obama can't win without a surge of casual and non-traditional voters (as he did in 2008), then one can begin to see the possible issues with a Palin candidacy. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is a magnficent public servant and ambassador of Conservatism, and I deeply admire her. But speaking strictly in terms of electoral strategy, the level of hatred that many of those casual and non-traditional voters have for her could drive voter turnout for Obama where it otherwise wouldn't have been. I'm not saying Sarah can't beat Obama--I think she could, but it would be one hell of a fight.
I am however saying that there could be another solution that could all but gurantee a Conservative Presidential win in 2012. From my post on www.wrestlingclassics.com , here is my proposal for that solution:
"I think I've mentioned it here before, but you know what would be the *perfect* job for Sarah?
RNC Chairperson.
Before all of you spit your adult beverages all over your computer screen, think this through: What are the most important functions of a party chairperson? Raising funds and appealing to the base. There is, of course, some responsibilities in terms of agenda and strategy for the party--but it appears to me that the biggest (or at least the most highly visible) part of the job is 1) Convicing the base that the candidate isn't "leaving them behind" and 2) Convincing that base to open their checkbooks and financially back that candidate.
Nobody appeals to the base of the GOP like Sarah does, and she's among the best fundraisers we have (maybe Karl Rove is slightly ahead of her at this point, but I'd say she's right up there with him). A party chairman is there to rally the base of the party while the candidate is out there trying to rally everyone else--and it's role that Sarah's made for!
You know who else has done a pretty good job in a similar role? Howard Dean. And as scary as it might be to say this, there are some similarities between Dean and Palin:
**Dean appeals to the "true believers" of the Left as much as Sarah does to the true believers of the Right (perhaps only Al Gore gets more love from the committed Left than Dean does)
**Both scare the pants of the opposite party and much of the centrists (making it more difficult for either to win on a national level)
**Both can "fire up" the base and get people to open the checkbooks.
**The media will give both of them all the airtime they want, because they know that either one of them will be good for a juicy soundbite virtually on command.
And the best part--all of the "Palin Haters" who would come out strictly to vote against her would likely stay home. After all, *she* wouldn't be running for anything, and would have no real power (at least in a governing sense), so attacks on her--a mere party chairperson--during a Presidential campaign would fall flat. Seems to me that you'd get the best that Sarah has to offer (ability to fire up and appeal to the base, ability to raise money, and perhaps some efforts at nudging the party platform more to the Right) with none of the negatives (all of the nitwits and crazies who think Sarah is "evil incarnate" would likely stay home--and as I've said a million times, low or moderate voter turnout would work against Obama regardless of who the opponent is).
I do think Palin would make a magnificent President, and would support her wholeheartedly if it came down to her or if she were the only truly Conservative candidate. However, if we can find another True Conservative to run (and that might be a rather large "if") then Sarah as RNC Chairperson might be the brilliant move that puts it over the top."
Now, the key to all of this is for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012 while Sarah handles the fundraising and firing up of the base. As I've said before, in 2012, I will back the most Conservative candidate, I will not back a moderate simply because they have an (R) after their name. But with that having been said, a Conservative candidate--even one with relatively little experience--could beat Obama in 2012 if our poltical machine is humming along at it's highest efficiency. And I think Sarah Palin could be the perfect person for the job.
Unfortunately, the GOP establishment hasn't figured this out (no big surprise there), and they continue the charade of Micheal Steele desperately trying to hang onto his job while several others--who don't have the recognition or potential for grabbing donations as Palin does--challenge him for it. It has become a common theme of the GOP over the last 20 years: Yet another brilliant idea going to waste.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Your WTF Moment of the Day: Congress from Hell plays the part of America's Psycho Ex-Girlfriend
Time for a new re-curring feature on your friendly neighborhood blog: "Your WTF Moment of the Day"! These are intended to be "quick hit" commentaries and reactions about a particular news item of the day (as opposed to the long-form articles I've been writing here...don't worry, those aren't going away, but the WTF Moments are desinged to add another dimension to this, the greatest blog on teh interwebs)
Today's topic: Senate Democrats show off their agenda for the remaining weeks of this Congressional session, and appear to be intent on doing as much substantial damage as possible before Capitol Security throws them out.
Link to Washington Post story with the details: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14/reid-threatens-keep-congress-next-year/
So despite the utter rejection of the American People during the 2010 mid-terms, the Dems are committed to playing the role of the psycho ex-girlfriend who won't go away no matter how many times we don't return her phone calls, sleep with her best friend, or otherwise humilate her. Instead of taking a hint, understanding that the meaningless fling was just that, and moving on, they are instead convinced that we the people would fall madly in love with them if we would just come to our senses and realize how good they are for us. Instead, they simply don't realize that we have completely rejected everything they stand for, see them for the skank that they are, and refuse to put up with their proverbial "psycho ass" any longer.
As the legendary band Motley Crue once sang: "Girl, don't go away mad...Girl, just go away!"
The American people don't want $1.1 Trillion in spending, an arms reduction treaty with Russia, repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", or additional pork any more than a single guy wants to hear some chick (who he only banged because he was drunk) drone on about feelings, commitment, Twilight, or any of that other shit they talk about the next morning when you're trying to come up with some excuse to get them out of your house.
Note to Dems: I believe I speak for the American People when I say: "Bitch...Get Da Fuck Out!!!!"
...and put my shirt back in the closet where you found it! Psycho bitch, trying to take my shit...
Today's topic: Senate Democrats show off their agenda for the remaining weeks of this Congressional session, and appear to be intent on doing as much substantial damage as possible before Capitol Security throws them out.
Link to Washington Post story with the details: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14/reid-threatens-keep-congress-next-year/
So despite the utter rejection of the American People during the 2010 mid-terms, the Dems are committed to playing the role of the psycho ex-girlfriend who won't go away no matter how many times we don't return her phone calls, sleep with her best friend, or otherwise humilate her. Instead of taking a hint, understanding that the meaningless fling was just that, and moving on, they are instead convinced that we the people would fall madly in love with them if we would just come to our senses and realize how good they are for us. Instead, they simply don't realize that we have completely rejected everything they stand for, see them for the skank that they are, and refuse to put up with their proverbial "psycho ass" any longer.
As the legendary band Motley Crue once sang: "Girl, don't go away mad...Girl, just go away!"
The American people don't want $1.1 Trillion in spending, an arms reduction treaty with Russia, repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", or additional pork any more than a single guy wants to hear some chick (who he only banged because he was drunk) drone on about feelings, commitment, Twilight, or any of that other shit they talk about the next morning when you're trying to come up with some excuse to get them out of your house.
Note to Dems: I believe I speak for the American People when I say: "Bitch...Get Da Fuck Out!!!!"
...and put my shirt back in the closet where you found it! Psycho bitch, trying to take my shit...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Why we must declare war on intellectualism
It almost goes without saying that a massive change has occured in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of Americans living today and the values, beliefs, and behaviors of our grandparents and great-grandparents. When one examines this change in our culture (and the mostly negative consequences that arose from the actions generated by this cultural change), it can lead one to the rather daunting questions of "How in the Hell did we allow our nation to get to this point? Where did we wander off the trail?"
There are many potential scapegoats, of course. We could spend post after post laying blame on the media, the Democratic Party, or the entertainment industry (and who knows, perhaps at some point I will spend post after post doing this), but the fact is that none of those entities could have had as much influence over our beliefs and actions as they have unless we had somehow allowed them to do so. But if that is the case, then how on Earth did we allow these entities to co-opt and corrupt us?
One of the key answers to that question might surprise some of you--indeed, it might be something you've never considered or thought about. Indeed, when I mention what it is in the next few lines, it might seem counter-intuitive--or perhaps even flat-out crazy--to you. But if you think about it, and look back at the 20th Century, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
It is our trust in Intellectualism and Academia that has done untold damage to our society through the 20th century.
To put it in most simple terms, we as a society have abandoned our own knowledge, observations, judgement, understanding of human nature and yes, common sense...and have instead deferred to the pontifications of those who have spent their lives in our Colleges and Universities, but have produced little of actual value. Through the 20th century, we have been told that "the smartest guys in the room" have all the answers, and that those of us who don't have the "Ivy League Seal of Approval" should feel compelled to defer to whatever comes out of the mouths of the Intellectual Elite--no matter how ridiculous those words or ideas might be. Forget that many of the ideas that Intelligensia has backed over the last 100 years or so have been counter-intuitive to any sort of basic understanding of human nature, psychology, or sociology--we have somehow determined that those counter-intuitive ideas must somehow have more value than our own instincts and understanding, simply because these "new" ideas are coming from those who have a particular sheepskin on their wall or certain letters after their name.
In short, we have confused edcuation for intelligence.
What is the difference between education and intelligence? Think back to your childhood--if you're anywhere near my age (mid-thirties...though I'm not above claiming an age of 27 when speaking with a lovely lady), then you likely remember growing up around people in your childhood who always seemed to have the right answer or solution, regardless of what problem or situation arose. It might have been a parent, grandparent, neighbor, uncle, aunt, pastor...chances are, there was someone around early in your life (and perhaps, many someones) who had the ability to "figure out" the right solution or answer to whatever life handed them. Now, think a bit further--how many of those people were college educated? Of that group, how many had a Master's Degree? How many had a Doctorate?
For most of us, maybe a few of those influences had a college education. Perhaps one or two had a master's degree. And beyond your pediatrician or dentist, you probably didn't know anybody who had a doctorate. Speaking for myself, I grew up in an area where very few adults had anything beyond a High School education (and many didn't even have that)--but yet many of the adults I knew back then understood how do deal with people, understood how to teach them when necessary, understood when you should give people a helping hand (and perhaps more importantly, the knew when you shouldn't give a helping hand). They understood how to run a business, how to manage risk, invest, and grow money, and how to protect the interests of themselves and their families. All without the "Ivy League Seal of Approval".
These uneducated adults understood that you cannot prepare a child for adulthood without instilling discipline in him (but the intellectuals of the same era would argue that you have to be your child's best friend and not take an authoritative role in their lives). These uneducated adults knew that putting money away and spending responsibly would put you in good stead later in life (as the intellectuals claimed that one must spend, spend, spend with little regard for fiscal responsibility in order to keep the economy moving). These uneducated adults taught us that it is not acceptable to steal, lie, or kill in life (but the intellectuals of that era told us that if someone is economically, socially, or racially disadvantaged, then such actions must be understood, not criticized)
In short, most of the "uneducated" adults I grew up around had more intelligence and better judgement than many of the allegedly "educated" people I've met in the ensuing years since I left my hometown.
But how can this be? Shouldn't those with hours upon hours, and years upon years of education have the ability to make better judgements or come up with better answers than those without such education? One would think so...but there's one key element missing in mondern academia. The missing element is the connection of that education (and the theory it entails) to the realities of the world we live in. So much of what passes for modern education isn't proven, but is instead theorectical in nature. It is not meant to relate to how humans really behave in live, but instead is meant to relate to how those within the cocoon of intelligensia feel that humans should live.
Where the uneducated "rubes" that I grew up with made judgements, analysis, and decsions within the realm of reality (if I do X, then I know Y will happen next), much of intelligensia make their judgements, analysis, and decisions based outside the realm of the world that currently exists ("If we understand the terrorists, perhaps we could connect with them and make everybody more safe!"...despite the fact that World History would indicate this has never happened with this group of people).
This is not to say that education--in and of itself--is a bad thing. Heck, I have a bachelor's degree myself. However, it is to say that education is not the be all and end all of intelligence. The education one receives must be based in the practical, not the theoretical, in order to be of any value. Think back to LBJ's Great Society--a series of programs that the Intellectuals told us would level the playing field for poor Americans and give them opportunities that they were allegedly being deprived. The result? Cities that are in a shape as bad--or in many cases, worse--than they were before the meddling of LBJ and the intellectuals in his ear, not to mention a creation of a Welfare Class that burdens us to this day. The intellectuals never saw this coming--but the "good ol' boys" would have told you that giving money to people without having them work for it would do nothing more than encourage those people to remain unproductive and lazy (and indeed, they have).
It's high time that we start trusting in our own judgement again. The 20th Century has proven that the judgement of the Intellectuals is no more superior or less flawed than our own. Each of us has the power to analyze a situation or a problem, look at the facts avaliable, and use our own experience and knowledge of human beings to take proper action--we do not need an "educated" class of people to make those decisions for us or to try to influence our decisions. An education should be used to supplement what you already know and understand about the world, not to replace it.
If an intellectual tells you something that just doesn't make sense in your gut--then trust your gut, chances are that it has a better track record than the intellectual. When an intellectual tries to feed you come cockamamie theory that doesn't pass the "smell test" of reality (you know, like telling you we can provide health insurance to all Americans without raising the cost or comprimising the availability of that insurance), reject them! Their judgement-steeped as it is in the trappings of intelligensia--is no better than yours.
Remember, the "intellectuals" led us to failed ideas such as Keynsian Economics, The Great Society, Social Security, and The Community Re-Investment Act (and it's bastard offspring, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), all of which have contributed to the financial problems that we experience today. With that type of track record, perhaps it's high time that we sat Academia in the corner, and put the Dunce Cap upon their collective head.
There are many potential scapegoats, of course. We could spend post after post laying blame on the media, the Democratic Party, or the entertainment industry (and who knows, perhaps at some point I will spend post after post doing this), but the fact is that none of those entities could have had as much influence over our beliefs and actions as they have unless we had somehow allowed them to do so. But if that is the case, then how on Earth did we allow these entities to co-opt and corrupt us?
One of the key answers to that question might surprise some of you--indeed, it might be something you've never considered or thought about. Indeed, when I mention what it is in the next few lines, it might seem counter-intuitive--or perhaps even flat-out crazy--to you. But if you think about it, and look back at the 20th Century, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
It is our trust in Intellectualism and Academia that has done untold damage to our society through the 20th century.
To put it in most simple terms, we as a society have abandoned our own knowledge, observations, judgement, understanding of human nature and yes, common sense...and have instead deferred to the pontifications of those who have spent their lives in our Colleges and Universities, but have produced little of actual value. Through the 20th century, we have been told that "the smartest guys in the room" have all the answers, and that those of us who don't have the "Ivy League Seal of Approval" should feel compelled to defer to whatever comes out of the mouths of the Intellectual Elite--no matter how ridiculous those words or ideas might be. Forget that many of the ideas that Intelligensia has backed over the last 100 years or so have been counter-intuitive to any sort of basic understanding of human nature, psychology, or sociology--we have somehow determined that those counter-intuitive ideas must somehow have more value than our own instincts and understanding, simply because these "new" ideas are coming from those who have a particular sheepskin on their wall or certain letters after their name.
In short, we have confused edcuation for intelligence.
What is the difference between education and intelligence? Think back to your childhood--if you're anywhere near my age (mid-thirties...though I'm not above claiming an age of 27 when speaking with a lovely lady), then you likely remember growing up around people in your childhood who always seemed to have the right answer or solution, regardless of what problem or situation arose. It might have been a parent, grandparent, neighbor, uncle, aunt, pastor...chances are, there was someone around early in your life (and perhaps, many someones) who had the ability to "figure out" the right solution or answer to whatever life handed them. Now, think a bit further--how many of those people were college educated? Of that group, how many had a Master's Degree? How many had a Doctorate?
For most of us, maybe a few of those influences had a college education. Perhaps one or two had a master's degree. And beyond your pediatrician or dentist, you probably didn't know anybody who had a doctorate. Speaking for myself, I grew up in an area where very few adults had anything beyond a High School education (and many didn't even have that)--but yet many of the adults I knew back then understood how do deal with people, understood how to teach them when necessary, understood when you should give people a helping hand (and perhaps more importantly, the knew when you shouldn't give a helping hand). They understood how to run a business, how to manage risk, invest, and grow money, and how to protect the interests of themselves and their families. All without the "Ivy League Seal of Approval".
These uneducated adults understood that you cannot prepare a child for adulthood without instilling discipline in him (but the intellectuals of the same era would argue that you have to be your child's best friend and not take an authoritative role in their lives). These uneducated adults knew that putting money away and spending responsibly would put you in good stead later in life (as the intellectuals claimed that one must spend, spend, spend with little regard for fiscal responsibility in order to keep the economy moving). These uneducated adults taught us that it is not acceptable to steal, lie, or kill in life (but the intellectuals of that era told us that if someone is economically, socially, or racially disadvantaged, then such actions must be understood, not criticized)
In short, most of the "uneducated" adults I grew up around had more intelligence and better judgement than many of the allegedly "educated" people I've met in the ensuing years since I left my hometown.
But how can this be? Shouldn't those with hours upon hours, and years upon years of education have the ability to make better judgements or come up with better answers than those without such education? One would think so...but there's one key element missing in mondern academia. The missing element is the connection of that education (and the theory it entails) to the realities of the world we live in. So much of what passes for modern education isn't proven, but is instead theorectical in nature. It is not meant to relate to how humans really behave in live, but instead is meant to relate to how those within the cocoon of intelligensia feel that humans should live.
Where the uneducated "rubes" that I grew up with made judgements, analysis, and decsions within the realm of reality (if I do X, then I know Y will happen next), much of intelligensia make their judgements, analysis, and decisions based outside the realm of the world that currently exists ("If we understand the terrorists, perhaps we could connect with them and make everybody more safe!"...despite the fact that World History would indicate this has never happened with this group of people).
This is not to say that education--in and of itself--is a bad thing. Heck, I have a bachelor's degree myself. However, it is to say that education is not the be all and end all of intelligence. The education one receives must be based in the practical, not the theoretical, in order to be of any value. Think back to LBJ's Great Society--a series of programs that the Intellectuals told us would level the playing field for poor Americans and give them opportunities that they were allegedly being deprived. The result? Cities that are in a shape as bad--or in many cases, worse--than they were before the meddling of LBJ and the intellectuals in his ear, not to mention a creation of a Welfare Class that burdens us to this day. The intellectuals never saw this coming--but the "good ol' boys" would have told you that giving money to people without having them work for it would do nothing more than encourage those people to remain unproductive and lazy (and indeed, they have).
It's high time that we start trusting in our own judgement again. The 20th Century has proven that the judgement of the Intellectuals is no more superior or less flawed than our own. Each of us has the power to analyze a situation or a problem, look at the facts avaliable, and use our own experience and knowledge of human beings to take proper action--we do not need an "educated" class of people to make those decisions for us or to try to influence our decisions. An education should be used to supplement what you already know and understand about the world, not to replace it.
If an intellectual tells you something that just doesn't make sense in your gut--then trust your gut, chances are that it has a better track record than the intellectual. When an intellectual tries to feed you come cockamamie theory that doesn't pass the "smell test" of reality (you know, like telling you we can provide health insurance to all Americans without raising the cost or comprimising the availability of that insurance), reject them! Their judgement-steeped as it is in the trappings of intelligensia--is no better than yours.
Remember, the "intellectuals" led us to failed ideas such as Keynsian Economics, The Great Society, Social Security, and The Community Re-Investment Act (and it's bastard offspring, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), all of which have contributed to the financial problems that we experience today. With that type of track record, perhaps it's high time that we sat Academia in the corner, and put the Dunce Cap upon their collective head.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Diversity in Conservatism Part Deux: Why don't affluent African-Americans flock to Conservatism?
Writer's block is something that many great authors and thinkers--such as myself--are forced to deal with from time to time. Once the mid-term elections came and went, a certain calm--ok, maybe not "calm" but "chance to step back and at least take a breath"--seemed to descend over those of us in the realm of Conservative Commentary. The passionate energy and fervor with which we wrote over the last two years seemed to subside, at least on a temporary basis. I can tell you that, at least speaking for myself, I've actually had a hard time trying to find something to write about for the last couple of weeks.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
An open letter to the soon-to-be-elected Republican members of Congress
Dear Freshman GOP Congressional Class of 2011:
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)