Fighting for Life

We have blogged about the proposal in Washington State to legalize assisted suicide and why it must fail (here and here). So we note with approval the formation of the Washington Coalition Against Assisted Suicide. In addition to information about the initiative in Washington, the site includes data on the disastrous experiments in Oregon and the Netherlands. The presentation is cursory, but the site gives a very good overview of what is at stake.

Well, is he right or not?

John McCain states the obvious, and even Drudge jumps on him. McCain pointed out that Barack Obama's obsession with the 2003 decision to invade Iraq is a regrettable focus on the past rather than problems and policies of the present and future. The point is valid, and important. But ABC News finds the statement "an interesting claim from the man seeking to be the oldest American ever first elected president — about a candidate 25 years his junior." Drudge apparently agrees, including McCain's age (71) in his headline. Once again, Democrats make policy criticisms and the press gives them a free pass. The leading Republican criticizes his opponent's policy proposal and all the press cares to focus on is the Republican candidate's age.

By the bye, what is true about Obama's obsession with the Iraq War is also true of his policy proposals generally. As Titus has pointed out, Obama's ideas are more of the same liberal ideas that impeded American prosperity, freedom, and strength for long stretches of the Twentieth Century. That Obama dresses these failed ideas up as hopeful does not mitigate his status as the Candidate of the Past.

Hey, look at that. We've got a new nickname for the junior Senator from Illinois. Maybe McCain is more savvy than we know.

We would all do well to learn from WFB

Yesterday got pretty busy, so I was not able to weigh in on the passing of an American political legend; William F. Buckley. The intellectual father of the modern conservative movement was a giant among men. His conservatism was always honest, pragmatic, intellectually astute, fresh and most importantly effectual to the core -- it worked, and because it did the lives of millions of people were enriched as their freedom and opportunity expanded.

What a wonderful legacy to leave. God bless him for that.

As I have been reading tributes, one thing in particular caught my attention. This is from yesterday's Wall Street Journal piece, Up From Liberalism:

In his last years, Buckley grew discouraged about what he considered the drifts of the American right. In an interview with this page in 2005, he noted that "I think conservatism has become a little bit slothful." In private, his contempt was more acute. Part of it, he believed, was that what used to be living ideas had become mummified doctrines to many in the conservative political class. At the Yale Political Union in November 2006—Buckley's last public audience—he called for a "sacred release from the old rigidities" and "a repristinated vision." It was a bracing reminder that American conservatives must adapt eternal principles to new realities.

Buckley himself never lost his faith—in God, his country, the obligation to engage in the controversies of the age, and the wonders of the mind. His half-century at the center of the American scene was a model of thoughtfulness and political creativity that remains as relevant today, perhaps more so. Ave atque vale.

Even at the end of his life, Buckley was ahead of his time.

From my perspective, a truer diagnoses of the problems afflicting conservatism today was never made. We are stuck in the past replaying the conservative "Greatest Hits" album over and over again and frankly, the tunes that were popular in the 80's and 90's sound old and stale now. It is time to move past these "mummified doctrines" and offer solutions that fit our own times.

Like lambs to slaughter

At first blush, the writings and sentiments of Brian McLaren appear indistinguishable from those of his graceless co-blogger, Jim Wallis. There is the thoughtless tendency to conflate personal ethics with foreign and domestic policy. One finds the polemical and misleading denunciations of the Iraq War and other fronts of the War on Terror. The stunning hubris is on display -- we Sojourner folks rise above labels, and we defy your silly attempts to confine us in any traditional category because we're doing something BIG! And, of course, the opportunism is patent. For only $21.99 you can buy Mr. McLaren's new book and join the movement that (did he fail to mention?) is REALLY BIG!

Largely absent from McLaren's writings is the calumny element, the unfortunate tendency that Wallis and so many of his disciples demonstrate to substitute defamation for argument. Maybe it's McLaren's years in the ministry. Maybe he simply does not suffer from Wallis' evident inferiority complex. Whatever the reason, McLaren comes across in his writings as... well, likeable.

Really. McLaren seems like the type of guy with whom I would love to grab coffee and discuss the merits of Francis Schaeffer's denunciation of Thomas Aquinas. (In my view, Schaeffer's condemnation of Aquinas was the seed of intellectual discord of which evangelicals are now reaping the toxic fruit, but that's another post.) He seems almost reasonable and eminently affable. One is left with the impression of a pastor who genuinely cares not only for his flock but also for oppressed women in Saudi Arabia and (perhaps) even corporate lobbyists on K Street. Today he even praises President Bush for the administration's beneficial effect upon Africa.

But, like Wonder Bread, McLaren is at most 50% substance. Worse, he slips into Wallisian rhetoric from time to time. One begins to feel uneasy when one reads this in McLaren's review of E.J. Dionne's new book: "Until religious people can demonstrate an ability to bring their faith into politics in a responsible, respectful, civil, unifying, and charitable way, [secular people] have every right to be suspicious." Did he just throw us under the bus? Yes. Yes, he did. One's unease anneals into downright distaste when McLaren accuses conservative Christians of having a "polarizing, combative, and narrow version of Christian faith."

Whatever the extent of McLaren's charms, he is employing them for ill. The substance of McLaren's policy arguments is disgraceful. His proposals would harm everyone: Americans and foreigners; Christians and non-Christians; rich and poor; Sojourners and Haliburton-lovin', faith-hijackin', puppy-killin', war-mongerin' theocrats.

McLaren advocates direct negotiations with Iran, including a request for Iran's assistance to stabilize Iraq. A request for help! Needless to say, McLaren ignores the overwhelming evidence that Iran is actively fomenting unrest in Iraq and that our troops are succeeding in stablizing Iraq despite Iran's nefarious meddling.

Consider this enlightened bit of economic analysis from Pastor McLaren: "We truly reach a new stage in our civic dialogue when more and more of us climb to a political and moral higher ground that acknowledges the twin downsides of both big business and big government." Peurile? Check. Astonishingly arrogant? Got that. Slanderous? Yup. That's the trifecta!

Throughout, McLaren founds his peurile arguments on theonomous syllogisms. In McLaren's view, the verse, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," is a foundational principle of foreign policy. As I have discussed before, this way of reasoning is juvenile. Evangelicals, Right or Left, ought to avoid it. But it is more than juvenile, it is dangerous. McLaren is dressing up the failed policies of the Left, the policies that injured the common good for long stretches of the Twentieth Century, as something new and exciting. And those lured into his movement by his charms are following along, excited and unaware.

WFB

RIP. Most of us in the conservative movement never had the privilege of knowing the man. But without him, where would America be today? Would we have defeated Communism? Would we have originalists on SCOTUS and the lower federal courts? Would abortion be on the wane? Would our economy have recovered from the dismal Carter years? Would we have had Reagan? Would we still have federalism? Because of Buckley these questions are merely academic.

Thank God for putting William F. Buckley on earth from 1925 to 2008.

Earth to David Brooks

I am stunned. This, from David Brooks' column today:

We’re going to have two extraordinary nominees for president this year. This could be one of the great general election campaigns in American history. The only thing that could ruin it is if the candidates become demagogues and hurl accusations at each other that are an insult to reality and common sense.

Barack Obama and John McCain are lots of things, but to assert that either of them (let alone both) is an extraordinary nominee is to avoid all rational inferences. McCain is an extraordinary patriot. Obama has extraordinary self-regard. But does anyone other than David Brooks think that McCain and Obama represent the best America has to offer in the way of presidential nominees?

And Brooks' second assertion is as laughable as his first. One of the great campaigns in history? really? How much history does Brooks mean to encompass? Brooks' American history cannot include Adams v. Jefferson, Quincy Adams v. Jackson, Lincoln v. Everyone, Truman v. Dewey, Kennedy v. Nixon, Reagan v. Carter, or Bush v. Gore.

Obama's words...more than "just words"

Barack Obama is under attack from the left and right for failing to back up his rhetoric with substance. Hillary and McCain are playing from the same playbook. The assumption behind the attacks is that there is no beef behind the soaring Obama oratory.

Stephen Hayes today warns against this assumption. Like Reagan who was attacked in the very same way, Obama can do substance...but it will be liberal as hell.

Shadegg Changes His Mind

The Arizona House Republican has changed his mind and decided to run for reelection after his colleagues asked him to reconsider. In my opinion, this shows he cares far too much about what people in Washington think of him. But even if you think he is acting nobly (and not for his ego), you've got to admit that this entire episode is bizarre. I have never heard of something like this happening before.

Spielberg, heroic and prudent

Mega kudos to Steven Spielberg, the wildly successful Hollywood director who has disassociated himself from the Beijing Olympics in protest of China's abbetting the genocide in Sudan. We conservatives do not have many occasions to salute Hollywood celebrities, so it is with particular relish that we note Spielberg's extraordinary decision. We also note with delight Spielberg's intellectual courage; he has thus far stood strong despite withering criticism in China's state-run media.

Well done, sir.

Swift Boaters a "freak show"?

Jonathan Martin is one of my favorite reporters. I especially liked his reporting when he was at National Review because he was encouraged to let his conservative bias show. I still like his reporting at The Politico, but this piece is more than a little perturbing.

In it Martin suggests that Barack Obama may not be up to the "freak show" style of attacks that are sure to come his way in the general. Martin:

On potentially lethal lines of attack, religion and patriotism, Obama has twice now demonstrated that he's not sufficiently aware of the danger that exists from the conservative Freak Show that did as much to beat John Kerry as George W. Bush did in 2004.

Martin goes on to define the "freak show" circa 2004 as the Swift Boater campaign.

Somehow, I don't think this would have gotten past the National Review editors.

I know one of the Swift Boaters well. He is an accomplished man who has all the integrity in the world. I cannot speak for all of his fellow Swift Boaters, but if they have half the honor that he does, Martin should be ashamed of labeling their group a "freak show."

Thankfully, Byron York gives us some proper perspective:

A significant part of Martin's point is based on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth experience from 2004. It is a commonplace to dismiss them as a key part of the Freak Show attack on Kerry, but I covered the Swift Boaters from pretty much their public beginning, and the thing that gave them legitimacy was they were Kerry's fellow officers, they were with him in Vietnam, and they were in a position to know about his service. They came out, in public and by name, and made their charges. After spending a lot of time looking into it, I thought some of those charges had merit and others didn't. In any event, the Swift Boat allegations were an entirely legitimate matter of press inquiry. By Freak Show reckoning, however, the Swift Boaters have become shorthand for smear.

In any event, I don't see what is accomplished by calling this stuff, or, to take another example, the brouhaha about Michelle Obama's "proud of my country" comment, a Freak Show. And if you're worried about people saying unkind things about Barack Obama, it would be a good idea to stay away from the Clinton campaign and its surrogates for the next few weeks.

The guy who made this video is my hero

OK, whoever came up with this is a friggin genius. Not only does it make a salient point about the Obama plagiarism allegations, but it let's us relive middle school all over again!

Ice, ice baby...

George Mason pulls off another upset

George Mason Law School has recently earned just praise for its curricular innovations (Bench Memos, Volokh). And the law school continues to add to one of the most impressive law faculties in the nation by taking the eminently-qualified conservative scholars that liberal law schools won't touch.

There is also this tidbit, which has gone largely unnoticed. GM Law graduates attained the highest bar passage rate in the State of Virginia last summer! Why is this impressive? Consider that the competition for that honor included UVA, William & Mary, and Washington & Lee.

In my view, any smart conservative who is considering attending law school should narrow her search to three candidates: George Mason in the east, Notre Dame in the midwest, and Pepperdine on the west coast. My bold prediction is this: within the next 15 years, George Mason will be one of the three best law schools in the nation.

The Wallis-Bryant School of Debate Tactics

During my some dozens of years, the overwhelming majority of my friends and acquaintances have been liberals. That is partly a product of my having grown up in the highly secular northeast and partly a product of my chosen profession -- law. However, my liberal surrounds have seldom proven a handicap to civility. I have seldom had any trouble discussing religious, ideological, or political matters with my liberal friends in a civil manner. And when tempers have flared, we have nearly always been reconciled before the sun set.

The exception to this general rule comes in the form of devotees of Jim Wallis, a group of highly-educated, energetic evangelicals I call the Accomodators. (They call themselves the Sojourners.) Unlike nearly all my other liberal acquaintances, the Accomodators I know have proven incapable of engaging in rational, civil debate. Instead of arguments they communicate slanders. Their concept of debate entails making outlandish assertions predicated upon incediary presuppositions. So, for example, a colleague of mine whose bookshelves are despoiled by Wallis' screed frequently drops verbal hand grenades such as, "Conservatives are disappointed with Chief Justice Roberts because he's not sufficiently activist for conservative causes." When challenged on this point, of course, he failed to name a conservative who actually communicated such disappointment in the Chief's judicial restraint. This same colleague in a discussion immediately after the Iowa caucuses insisted that white Iowans have no history of perpetrating racial violence only because there are so few blacks in the State.

Accomodators are not the only liberals to substitute slanders for arguments. In fact, this is a common debate tactic among our neighbors on the Left. However, in the case of the Accomodators this practice is aggravated by an additional vice. When I have in conversations with my thoughtful liberal friends called attention to their ad hominem, they have usually repented. "I'm sorry, I never realized that's how it might come across," and "It never occurred to me that the conservative position was more nuanced than I had assumed," are common responses.

Not so with the Accomodators. When I have called out Acccomodators for their slanderous presuppositions they have invariably gone on the offensive. "You're misrepresenting what I said," and "How could you question my motives?" are common responses. In this way they behave much like Kobe Bryant after committing a hard foul. "This isn't fair! I can't believe I'm being victimized like this!"

For example, some time ago I suggested to an administrator of a prominent Christian college that Jim Wallis' chosen means of questioning the justness of the Iraq War -- slandering the military as baby-killers, calling supporters of the Bush administration "theocrats" -- was less than thoughtful and unbecoming a Christian leader. The administrator did not respond to my argument. Instead, he attacked me, accusing me of "truncating" the relevance of the gospel (whatever that means) and disparaging my knowledge of just war theory.

Similarly, when I pointed out to my colleague that he had slandered the entire white population of the State of Iowa, he accused me of putting words in his mouth. He had a pure, pure heart, he assured me.

I have a working hypothesis to try to explain my experience with Accomodators. It is this: as they absorb Wallis' arguments, Accomodators also learn his vicious debate tactics. And just as they insulate their policy proposals from criticism by covering them with Christ's mantle -- "Universal health care is a moral issue!" -- they also avoid taking responsibility for their irresponsible rhetoric by convincing themselves they are doing the true work of Christ.

That is my hypothesis. Unfortunately, none of the Accomodators with whom I am acquainted has yet disproven it.

Delusional

David Brooks isn't the only one in the MSM to note, contrary to popular opinion, that the Obamperor has no clothes. Robert Samuelson today comes to a similar conclusion:

The contrast between [Obama's] broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

"Obama Comedown Syndrome"

David Brooks observes a worrisome development sweeping through the ranks of Obamamania: Obama Comedown Syndrome. As the crowds of Obama-heads come down from their latest "hope-amine" injection they are being confronted with some bitter truths:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

Advancing the Reagan Coalition

The Fredheads started a new group that will raise money to elect conservatives: Conservatives for the Advancement of the Reagan Coalition.

Conservatism for our time

Fariad Zakaria reviews David Frum's new book Comeback under an article ominously entitled The End of Conservatism. Frum's book as I have read it so far (I am halfway though) is a wakeup call for conservatives who are still stuck fighting the battles of the late 70's/early 80's and mid 90's-- in other words, the battles that have already been decidedly won by conservatives.

Frum makes a convincing argument: we need a revamped conservatism that fits our time. A conservatism that is relevant. A conservatism that can win at the polls. Ronald Reagan's 80's brand of conservatism -- the kind that many of us true believers long for -- would be a loser today if it had been adhered to by the Bush Administration, says Frum:

"the evidence suggests that a more consistent, more principled, more conservative administration would have been even more soundly rejected by the public than the unpopular Bush administration ever was." As Frum documents, every Bush policy that conservatives decry is in fact wildly popular. Public support for prescription-drug benefits ranges from 80 to 90 percent. And every Bush policy conservatives favor is regarded by the public with great suspicion. A majority of Americans regard the Bush tax cuts as "not worth it," and would prefer increased spending or balancing the budget to cutting taxes. In the one area where Bush remains unfailingly popular with conservatives—foreign policy—public support has also collapsed. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who believe that military force can reduce the risk of terrorism dropped sharply between 2002 and 2006, from 48 percent to 32 percent.

Before I buy this hook line and sinker, let me say that I agree with Frum, but only to an extent. Who knows how things might have been different had conservatives had a President for the past eight years who could use the bully pulpit like Reagan could. Part of a conservative President's responsibility is to educate the American public about the need for certain policies. Saving Social Security and Medicare for the next generation will take such a skilled leader -- a leader who can communicate the need for prudence, practicality and when necessary, sacrifice.

Now, that said, Frum is right to suggest that the policies of Reagan's time were conservative solutions for their day and age. The world we live in today is decidedly different and as such we are confronted with different problems requiring different solutions.

This, sadly is something a lot of us are missing as we thrash about in our current conundrum and reminisce about glory days past.

Where are the 21st century versions of welfare reform, the laffer curve and supply side economics? These ideas at the time were revolutionary and they fueled a movement. Conservatives today should defend the "wins" we had on these issues, but at the same time be looking forward to solve new problems. Until we do that, we will remain out of sync with an American people who are looking to the future with other issues on their minds.

Romney vs. Huckabee in 2012

It's way too early to start making predictions but I'm going to do it anyway. Senator McCain certainly has a chance of winning this November, but right now the smart money is on Senator Obama. If Obama does win, who will be the Republican nominee in 2012? A story in the Washington Post today sheds light on this question, pointing out the recent trend in Republican politics of nominating the candidate that came in second in the previous contest.

When you go back more than 30 years to the birth of the modern presidential primary system, in fact, the only Republican to have won his party's nomination for president without having come in second in the previous open primary election was George W. Bush, who sought the presidency for the first time in 2000. But even this is barely an exception to the rule, because the Republican who came in second in the previous open election, in 1996, was Pat Buchanan -- and he ran for president in 2000 as the candidate of the Reform Party.

At this point in the campaign, Romney is considered the runner up to McCain and is well-positioned to win the nomination in four years should McCain lose this November. This explains why Governor Huckabee has stubbornly refused to withdraw from the race. He wants to run again and wants to be seen as the true runner up in this year's contest. Hopefully Republicans will remember that this race was really between McCain and Romney, and that it was Romney who quickly withdrew and graciously backed the eventual nominee.

Hold on to this video

Senator McCain pledged today to oppose new taxes:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So on taxes, are you a “read my lips” candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?

MCCAIN: No new taxes I do not — in fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT. There’s a lot of things that I would think we should to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But under no circumstances would you increase taxes?

MCCAIN: No.

Obama: Savior of Marriages

The messianic aura grows. A coda to this unintentionally hilarious New York Times article:

And lo, at our 20th wedding anniversary, Barack desired that pitchers of water be brought unto him, and I spake thus to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." And when the host of the cocktail party drew the water, he saeth, "Why hast thou saved the best Chianti for last?"

Russia back on the march

Russia complained today that U.S. military plans to shoot down a damaged spy satellite may be a veiled test of America's missile defense system. Russia's Defense Ministry said the Pentagon failed to provide "enough arguments" to back its plan to smash the satellite next week with a missile.

"There is an impression that the United States is trying to use the accident with its satellite to test its national anti-missile defense system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites," the ministry said.

Perhaps Russia is so quick to accuse the U.S. of saber rattling because it has its own plans to show off it's military power. According to a Heritage Foundation memo...

On May 9, heavy military equipment will once again roll down Moscow's Red Square for the Victory Day military parade. Tanks, missiles, and 6,000 troops will be joined overhead by Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter aircraft and military helicopters. The last time Moscow saw such a display of military hardware on Red Square was in November 1990, before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

While most of our foreign policy discussions center on the Middle East and North Korea, the next president will also have to deal with Russia, which is becoming increasingly hostile to American interests.

Why didn't I think of this?

Obama Messiah...of course!

Democrats sell our national security

Congressional Democrats have decided to let a vital intelligence law expire at the stoke of midnight tonight. They could have prevented this from happening but chose not to. In his weekly radio address, the President summed up the case for action.

At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad...

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.

Unfortunately, Democrats are too busy doing the work of their campaign contributors who are suing American phone companies for helping our government protect us. Amanda Carpenter writes at Townhall.com that "the 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiff s in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democrat senators."

Democrats know that if the FISA bill is passed, the phone companies will be protected from litigation and the trial lawyers will lose. In blocking this vital legislation, Democrats have put our national security up for sale. They apparently care more about making money for their campaign donors than actually saving American lives.

Do not trust Huck

I was never a huge fan of Governor Huckabee but now I've come to really dislike him. He should have withdrawn after Governor Romney got out of the race. But no, he said he still had a chance to win and would carry his campaign forward to the convention in the hopes that conservatives would rally around him. That hasn't happened.

This week Huckabee was given another chance to get out of the race when Romney endorsed Senator McCain and encouraged his pledged delegates to support the Senator. Unfortunately, he decided to press on, perhaps so he can continue to make TV appearances.

The worst of it is that he continues to convince some Americans to send him $20 checks even though he will never win the nomination. If he is willing to rip these people off, I'm certiain that I can't trust him with my tax dollars.

Huckabee started out as a quick-witted, populist candidate. He's now a phony, power-loving televangelist.

Step up or step down

How many Members of Congress does it take to convince a colleague not to retire? In the case of Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, the current count is 143. He announced his plans to retire earlier this week but after receiving a letter from his colleagues urging him to stay, he is now reconsidering.

I don't know why the congressman wants to retire or why his colleagues are going to such lengths to change his mind, but the whole episode is extraordinary. I've never heard of someone being talked out of resigning with such a public display but apparently his colleagues believe it will work or they wouldn't be doing it.

The real question is: how many Members of Congress should it take to convince Shadegg to stay? That answer is ZERO!

The man should make his decision based on what he believes is right for his family and his country, not the favor of a bunch of politicians. Phil Gramm once said, "I didn't come here expecting to find a lot of friends, and I have not been disappointed." Perhaps Shadegg's motivation for being in Congress has changed since he was elected in the revolutionary Class of 1994.

If the congressman decides to stay because of his colleagues' unnecessary pleas, it will, in my opinion, demonstrate that he cares far too much about the approval of his peers and therefore does not deserve to be in a position of leadership.

George Mason ahead of the curve

Another reason why George Mason Law School is quickly becoming the best place in America to get a legal eduction.

Huh?

Obama says we must do "whatever it takes" to end gun violence. But don't be alarmed, he's not suggesting tyranny. He still believes in the Second Amendment. (What a relief!)

Instead, he recommends background checks. Why didn't we think of that before? Well, we did. And background checks did not stop the NIU shooter.

When will the American people finally see how vacuous is the junior Senator from Illinois?

A reparable wrong

Senator and presidential aspirant Barack Obama has sponsored the aptly-titled "Global Poverty Act of 2007." The title is apt because the bill is sure to make Americans on the whole poorer and is likely to affect poverty worldwide not very much. (Why, given his misguided notions, did the Senator not name the bill "The Global Poverty Reduction Act"? That would have been a misnomer but, I suspect, it also would have been better marketing.)

The bill is getting unqualified bad press from some conservative organizations, such as the Family Research Council, which is unfortunate for two reasons. First, it's never a good idea to confirm the mistaken stereotype that we conservatives don't care about the poor. In fact, recent studies have demonstrated that conservatives are much more generous to the poor and downtrodden that are liberals.

Second, the bill isn't all bad. I defer to FRC's assertion that the bill will cost American taxpayers an additional $845 billion. That part is bad. By taking money out of the hands of Americans, the most generous people on the planet, and putting it into the hands of US and UN bureaucrats, the bill would ensure that every person on Earth who is not a bureaucrat is poorer.

But the bill has some redeeming qualities. Section 4(c)(4) would require the US to reduce poverty by "Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries." Putting free market principles to work in our trade policy in order to help poor nations develop is a conservative and laudable practice. We're for this.

Section 4(c)(6) would require the US to "Mobiliz[e] and leverag[e] the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships." Privatized poverty solutions: we're in favor of this, too.

The bill is a mitigated disaster. Rather than make easy negative headlines for the liberal media -- "Conservative Evangelicals Oppose Measure to Assist the Poor!!!" -- let's work to fix the bill before it gets out of the Senate.

The Archbishop of Cant

The Prelate of the Church of England has stirred just indignation over and right criticism of his suggestion that the United Kingdom ought to allow her people to choose whether to live under English common law or sharia law. "Treason." "Dangerous." "[F]olking nuts." The descriptions are apt.

I am thus surprised and disappointed to stumble upon Eugene Volokh's defense of the Archibishop's proposal. (He supplements his defense here.) Volokh's argument can briefly be summarized. He analogizes choice of sharia law to a choice of the law of a foreign jurisdiction in an arbitration contract, prenuptial, or other antecedent agreement. These agreements, and the choices of law they contain, are generally enforceable in the United States. Volokh then supposes that choice of sharia law in the UK would be constrained by certain unidentified exceptions. He asserts, "No-one is talking about executing apostates, only about providing for an alternate way to resolve normal civil disputes related to financial transactions, divorce, and the like."

Au contraire. In the real world, where events that shatter liberal illusions go unreported by the liberal media, many Muslims are talking about executing apostates. And executing their daughters. And executing homosexuals, and Christians, and Budweiser salesmen...

Professor Volokh isn't liberal (I would not slander him so) and he generally has good sense. Perhaps he meant to write that the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't talking about executing apostates. That is true. But the Prelate's silence on this matter is at least equally as troubling as the certitude of so many Islamic fascists. That Professor Volokh and the Archbishop perceive no fundamental difference between the choice of sharia law and the choice of Texas law betrays a surfeit of understanding. Indeed, the Archbishop declaimed that "a detailed discussion of the nature of sharia" is "far beyond my competence."

No doubt it is beyond my competence as well. But to pretend that those provisions of sharia that endorse honor killings, forced marriages, spousal abuse, and those which prohibit the education of women and freedom of speech, are somehow ancillary to or severable from more universally-accepted tenets is to misstate the situation. Do those Muslims who clamber to live under sharia ask merely for enforcement of those parts of shari'a that are acceptable to their non-Muslim countrymen? Of course not. If they sought only enforcement of those provisions that are consistent with English common law then what would be the point in demanding a separate body of law at all?

Muslims are not relativists. Perhaps this is a case of the lesser failing to comprehend the greater. The Archbishop fails to comprehend the truth claims of sharia because, having submerged himself in multicultural relativism, he has lost the ability to reason. The truth claims of Islamic fascists are troubling, but they are at least robust and clear. Contrast the clarity of sharia with the following tripe from the Archbishop's speech.

There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice. As I have maintained in several other contexts, this is a very unsatisfactory account of political reality in modern societies; but it is also a problematic basis for thinking of the legal category of citizenship and the nature of human interdependence.

What is the Prelate saying here? Who can interpret such mush? To the extent that he is saying anything at all, he appears to be disparaging the rule of common law. Is it any wonder that the Islamic fascists consider Western civilization easy prey?

Another reason why Obama must be stopped

As Titus pointed out last week, Barack Obama is a very talented orator. He convinces his audiences to suspend disbelief, skepticism, and knowledge of history. Not only does he dress the failed policies of Carter and LBJ as the change of the future, he leaves grown women in tears as he does so.

Here's another reason why Obama must not succeed in his bid for the presidency: in addition to failed policies he offers obsolete philosophical dogmas. A friend emailed me the following passage from Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. I refuse to buy the book and so have not confirmed the accuracy of the passage, but the source is trustworthy.

It's not just absolute power the founders sought to prevent. Implicit in it's (the constitution's) structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or "ism," any tyrannical suggestion that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad.

Leave aside for the moment the astonishing hubris. Focus on the proposition: "Implicit in [the constitution] was a rejection of absolute truth." This philosophical dogma has a name. It's called legal positivism. Positivism was very fashionable in jurisprudential circles early in the twentieth century but had a very short shelf life. Within less than a generation positivism came and went for the same reason that all relativistic philosophies evanesced: it defeated itself. The folly of the relativistic fallacy, on which positivism was predicated -- all truth claims are relative except the truth claim that all truth claims are relative -- was and is obvious to a fifth grader.

That positivism has endured long after its academic proponents renounced it remains a great puzzle. It makes frequent appearances in the writings of certain Supreme Court justices (see the infamous mystery-of-life passage from Justice Kennedy's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and is sprinkled throughout the arguments of willfully ignorant contemporary liberals. It frequently appears when a secular liberal bemoans the supposed arrogations of Christianity. Most of the people who invoke positivism don't read very much and cannot be expected to know that this academic fad went out with big-band swing dancing. The philosophical company that Obama keeps, much like the social company he keeps, is thus quite suspect. And this from a law professor!

That's not all we can learn from this passage. This is a rich vein indeed. Barack Obama rejects absolute truth claims. "Slavery is immoral and ought to be legally prohibited," is an absolute truth claim. So is, "Fathers ought not sexually abuse their daughters." These tyrannical suggestions ought not, according to Barack, lock future generations into a single, unalterable course.

Of course, this assertion of Obama's, like most of his assertions, is not an argument but a slander. Like the assertion "Poverty in America is a moral issue," it is predicated upon an incendiary presupposition, designed to close debate and draw attention away from Obama's vacuity. According to Obama, the conservative's prudential disagreement over the role of government in aiding the poor results from an inadequate moral syllogism. And according to the Senator from Illinois those who make absolute truth claims in the end resort to the "cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad."

I don't mind being slandered by a man who appears not to read very much, but I cannot abide the thought that he might someday be my president.

Romney done

This is one reason why he had the potential to be a great president:

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Well said, Governor. Well said.

McCain and the future of conservatives

As conservatives ponder what to do with McCain, the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger puts forth a persuasive plea not to sit this one out. Henninger points out that four years in the wilderness under and Obama or Clinton Presidency is likely to make conservatives even madder at each other.

In the world of reactionary and negative blogs, YouTube and 24/7 cable news, we will be left sniping amongst ourselves as liberals use institutions -- the White House, House and Senate -- to galvanize their ideology. Henninger believes conservatives would be better off with McCain in the White House because we would have an institution from which policy and ideology could flow. His argument is that, contrary to our fears, McCain will govern conservatively.

Most of the distrust of the McCain candidacy is rooted in personal ill will. He's a hard case, and activists are often brittle. The fear is that one of the strongest impulses in a McCain presidency will be payback, and that he might sell out conservatives on taxes and the judiciary. That is possible, though by now it would require an act of deep duplicity by Mr. McCain. Here again, the conservatives should show more self-confidence.

The big lesson of the failed Harriet Miers nomination is that a real establishment on judicial nominations exists now in Washington. Throwing another David Souter over the transom and onto the Court is nearly impossible. A participant in this process who has discussed it with Sen. McCain tells me that he says his advisers on major judicial nominations will include Ted Olson, Sam Brownback and Jon Kyl. Miguel Estrada, a victim of the Gang of 14 senators on the judicial filibuster, has endorsed Mr. McCain.

But one thing Henninger does not mention is the way in which our movement organically grew in the past when we were out of power. During the 70's DC was crawling with liberals, and conservatism quietly strengthened. And it was Newt Gingrich who used the minority perch in the House to craft a cohesive conservative ideological game plan that resulted in the 1994 Revolution.

Why could conservatives in the House and Senate not to the same under a new liberal White House?

Where to Next?: Huckabee the Irresponsible -- Part II

Mike Huckabee has succeeded in ensuring that John McCain captures the Republican nomination. Along the way he has disparaged fiscal conservatism, threatened to turn our Republic into a theonomy, and demonstrated a peurile understanding of foreign policy issues. In short, as the perceived political spokesman for evangelicals, he has confirmed nearly every stereotype our intellectual and political opponents have cast of us over the last 40 years.

This hurts the evangelical movement not only in the political arena but more generally in our civic efforts. Huckabee has harmed the efforts of evangelicals involved in charity and economic development by suggesting that government can do the job better. Huckabee has made it more difficult for evangelicals to engage in political and civic discourse with his "us vs. them" rhetoric. Huckabee has given evangelicals in the business world real cause for concern by defending his old tax-and-spend gubernatorial habits. Huckabee has impeded the cause of evangelical moral and legal philosophy by rejecting arguments from public reason in favor of theonomous dogmas.

However, if we evangelical conservatives are to rid ourselves of the Huckabee legacy, it is not enough for us merely to disavow the man. We must also figure out where we go from here. By now we should have inferred that no baby-boom, conservative evangelical standard-bearer is going to emerge from the Kansas wheat fields (a la Brownback), the hills of western Virginia (a la Falwell), the Colorado front range (a la Dobson), or a little town called Hope (a la you-know-who) to lead us into the future.

This is not to disparage the Herculean efforts of the Baby Boomer evangelicals -- Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Schlafly, and others -- who between 1973 and 2004 convinced evangelicals to emerge from their isolation and who built arguably the most influential cultural and political force in American politics today. It is to suggest that those leaders can carry evangelicalism only so far. The Boomer leaders raised public evangelicalism from infancy into adolescence. Now the movement must step out on its own into adulthood.

Evangelicals must continue to move forward to face the challenges facing a new generation. We cannot afford to live our public lives as if preserved in amber. And if evangelicals are to carry public reason seasoned with grace into the public sphere, we must, put simply, grow up. As if they were ill-fitting jeans and ratty t-shirts, we must shed immature conceptions of the public good, of economic progress, of international relations.

Theonomous assertions got us this far, but we must move beyond them. Any argument that begins, "The Bible says..." should never pass our lips or appear in our writings. We should at all times invoke God's blessing, but never his mandate. We need to resist the temptation to believe that God has made us responsible for eradicating poverty or preventing infant mortality, even as we freely give of ourselves to the poor, the ill, and the downtrodden. We need to demonstrate enthusiasm for the complexities and messiness of free markets and rebuke those who would employ government to tidy things up.

More than anything, we need to be comfortable in our own skin. We don't need Mike Huckabee, or even Chuck Norris, to show the world how cool we are. To the contrary. We need to resist the urge to accomodate, to fit in with secular elitists. We might very well be heading into a dark period in American history, a period from which America will emerge weaker, more timid, less optimistic. Someday, maybe several years from now, America will desperately need light. We have the Light of the world. Will we have an introduction ready?

Trying to stay optimistic

As the Maverick plows ahead to what looks to be an inevitable nomination I am doing everything I can to stay optimistic. Watching this today helped...the second half of Reagan 1980 RNC acceptance speech:

The Game

We conservatives are feeling a little down today. But here's something to look forward to, something that bridges political and ideological divides, even while it generates its own divisions: Duke is in Chapel Hill tonight.

#2 vs. #3. Fun stuff even (or perhaps especially) for those of us who have no rooting interest in the outcome.

A step backward

McCain's and Huckabee's successes tonight essentially narrow the presidential field to three: McCain, Obama, and Hillary. The Republic will survive any of those three. She has survived world wars, slavery, depressions, and Woodrow Wilson. However, it is now certain that she will be a little weaker, a little less just, and a lot less secure after November.

Huckabee the Irresponsible -- Part I

If McCain secures the Republican nomination, we will of course have Mike Huckabee to blame. The Huckster has succeeded in drawing just enough support in key states to split the conservative vote and to make a McCain nomination seem inevitable. If McCain puts this thing out of reach today, history will remember Mike Huckabee as the man who prevented conservatives from placing a conservative at the head of the Republican ticket in 2008.

But what if Mitt Romney pulls this off? Suppose Mitt today wins California, Georgia, Massachusetts, and pulls an upset in one more state (Tennessee? Missouri?). Suppose Mitt then carries that momentum into Louisiana, Washington, Kansas, and beyond. Supppose Mitt wins the nomination. What will Mike Huckabee's legacy be in that case?

Unfortunately, the media have been portraying Huckabee as the new political spokesman for the evangelical movement. This is unfortunate and unfair. Huckabee does not in fact represent evangelicals, he merely represents one of the two distasteful elements in evangelicalism: the Know Nothings. But because we evangelicals are a rather egalitarian lot, and have no official spokespersons, this is an area in which perception matters at least as much as reality. So if the world perceives that Mike Huckabee represents evangelicals then Mike Huckabee does, for all practical purposes, represent evangelicals.

And what if the world perceives that, despite their best efforts, supporters of Mike Huckabee failed to prevent Mitt Romney from securing the nomination? In that instance, evangelicals appear not merely to be morons but politically inept morons.

Now, I point out this Hobson's choice not because I care one whit about Mike Huckabee's legacy. (In all events, I am still holding out hope for a Romney victory, and will do so until he concedes.) I make this point only to demonstrate some of the damage that Huckabee has caused to evangelicalism. More on the implications of this damage in Part II, to come.

Bush Against Romney Because of Immigration?

Robert Novak reports that President Bush won’t support Mitt Romney because he changed his mind about the amnesty bill.

While President George W. Bush has maintained neutrality among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, he privately expresses to friends his exasperation with Mitt Romney's hard-line stance on immigration.

Bush is upset that Romney changed his position on the issue, compared to what it had been when he was governor of Massachusetts, at the expense of the president's immigration reform. Bush and Sen. John McCain are not close, but the president is grateful for McCain's support on Iraq and immigration.

A footnote: The president's younger brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has not endorsed any presidential candidate. But he and his political allies were behind Romney's losing effort in last Tuesday's Florida primary.

I'm so mad I don't know what to say. This is outrageous! I hope people vote for Romney purely out of spite.

Change to what? Why Obama must be stopped

First let me begin this post by saying that I watched Barack Obama's South Carolina acceptance speech last weekend and I must admit to being moved. I liked what I saw.

Behind the victorious candidate were throngs of excited people, young and old, black and white and I assume rich and poor. I, like all good Americans, want a country that is inclusive and that offers the American dream to everyone without exception.

Obama to his credit gave what I think was one of the better political speeches I have ever witnessed. His youthful vigor, idealism, cadence and God-given talent as an exceptional orater combined with the backdrop of an enthused diverse crowd made for quite the spectacle.

Here is how he ended his speech:

So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it is not about black versus white.

(Cheers, applause.)

This election is about the past versus the future. (Cheers, applause.) It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us that we can't do this, that we can't have what we're looking for, that we can't have what we want, that we're peddling false hopes. But here's what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of that elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day, an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 -- (cheers, applause) -- along with a verse of Scripture tucked inside the envelope. So don't tell us change isn't possible. That woman knows change is possible. (Cheers, applause.)

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen. (Cheers, applause.)

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who's now devoted to educating inner-city children, and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change. (Cheers, applause.)

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change.

(Chants of "Yes, We Can! Yes, We Can!")

Yes, we can.

(Continued chants of "Yes, We Can!")

Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs, and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we've carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many we are one, that while we breathe we will hope, and where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words: Yes, we can.

Thank you, South Carolina. I love you. (Cheers, applause.)

Great stuff...and it is exceptionally powerful in a day and age where gridlock, partisanship, poor leadership and cynical and divisive politics is the status quo in the Capital of the Free World.

But after all the warm fuzzies wear off we have to ask the hard questions. As conservatives who have studied Obama we already know the answers, and it ain't pretty. As National Journal has documented, Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. So the "change" that Obama talks of is less of a "change" and more of a regression to the failed policies of LBJ and more recently Jimmy Carter.

The goal for conservatives is convincing the American people to see through the smoke and really examine Obama. This won't be easy in the soundbite age but it is absolutely imperative.

Many people around me came of political age when Ronald Reagan and his policies were still fresh. Reagan's ability to communicate to the American people gave him the ability to reach people who previously had no interest in politics and no real political identity. When Reagan spoke he tugged and people's heart strings. The result was an entire generation of folks who found their political identities in the Reagan era. In other words, they became conservative Republicans and helped usher in an age of conservative ascendancy in Washington.

Reagan was the last President this nation had with the ability to connect with and inspire people in this way. Now, along comes Barack Obama who has demonstrated a similar ability. The difference between Reagan and Obama of course is that the policies underlying Reagan's rhetoric all pointed toward empowering the individual at the expense of the government. Obama reverses that formulation, but connects with people nonetheless.

Here is the kicker: today we have a new generation of political neophytes and guess who is speaking to them...Obama. Conservatives cannot afford this. More importantly, the country cannot either...literally.

1st amendment and respect for the text

Titus makes an interesting point. That a justice who ignores the First Amendment would also find in the constitution a right to kill the unborn seems like a logical inference. In both instances, the justice would be ignoring the text of the constitution and substituting his or her own (liberal) policy preferences. So there is perhaps reason to believe that a justice who passes McCain's litmus test on McCain-Feingold (which he denies any intention to use, for what it's worth) would also leave originalists and conservatives out to dry on abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues.

So is there an actual correlation between a restrictive view of the First Amendment speech clause and an expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, on which the rights of abortion and sodomy are supposed to rest? Actually, yes.

The five justices who upheld portions of McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. F.E.C.: Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Souter, Stevens. The four who voted against M-F: Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas.

The four justices who dissented in last term's Gonzales v. Carhart decision, in which the Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens. The five who voted to uphold the ban: Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Substitute Rehnquist for Roberts and the correlation becomes clearer. Note that O'Connor voted in the plurality in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, then substitute O'Connor for Alito, and the correlation is clearer still. (And note how important the Alito confirmation was.)

The correlation is not direct, of course. Kennedy wrote the infamous plurality opinion in Casey and the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, creating a right to homosexual sodomy. But Kennedy is surely a special case, being as inconsistent as he is in his jurisprudence.