American values shifting left

I do not believe in fear-mongering. But these numbers do not bode well for our great nation.

Gerson can't help himself

After blindsiding Senate conservatives in a recent screed for their unwillingness to blindly approve $50 billion in deficit spending for AIDS relief in Africa, Michael Gerson is now using the Bible to attack Tom Coburn. In this piece, Gerson picks out one sentence of a Coburn column and proceeds to completely misrepresent Coburn's argument. Coburn was not arguing that Jesus was a libertarian, rather, he was making a point about how so-called "compassionate" conservatives love to spend other people's money.

Read it for yourself:

Now comes another charge -- that compassionate conservatism is actually opposed by the Bible. "Common sense and the Scriptures," argues Sen. Tom Coburn, "show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor's possessions. Spending other people's money is not compassionate."

It is not my purpose to pick on the senator from Oklahoma (once again); he is a man of principle. And he is merely restating a fairly common view: that compassion is a private virtue, not a public one, and that religious conscience concerns the former and not the latter.

But this is a theological assertion, not a political one. And as theology, it is flawed.

Be sure to keep reading and note where Gerson concludes that Coburn would not like to associate himself with the great, and yes compassionate, works of William Wilberforce, John Wesley and Lord Shaftesbury. This is of course a laughable charge. Not only has Tom Coburn demonstrated compassion throughout his life (this is a guy after all who inists on continuing to deliver babies while he is a senator, and charges nothing for it), but he works for it in the Senate. MEMO TO GERSON: It is possible to pass compassionate legislation that does not fleece the taxpayer.

This is another example of raising prudential disagreements about social ills to the level of moral disputes. Gerson and company do this everytime, and it gets tiresome.

Conservative reconnection

Good stuff...worth a read:

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan singlehandedly turned around the American economy. On the heels of the lackluster Carter years that saw high inflation and a poorly performing economy, Reagan proposed sweeping income tax cuts that transformed the American tax system. Indeed, Reagan’s policies have been credited for ushering in a new era of American prosperity.

By all accounts, the tax cuts of the 80’s were a massive success as were many other conservative wins over the last two decades. Defeating the “Evil Empire,” reforming the failed welfare bureaucracy, and winning confirmation of conservative judges — these are just some examples of conservative victories that made America better. And on these victories we must always defend the ground we have won because in Washington, no victories are permanent.

But today we have a problem.

Pence: Time to leave compassionate conservatism behind

Despite his cheerleading for McCain, who contrary to what Mike Pence says, has not always been a limited government conservative (there is nothing limited government about McCain-Feingold), Pence is right on the mark here calling for the end of so-called compassionate conservatism.

We will chalk up his kool-aid drinking on McCain's conservative credentials and on the GOP's prospects this fall to him being the consummate team player. Otherwise, really good stuff here from Pence, who should be among those the Party looks to for leadership after November.

While we're on the topic...

of so-called "Progressive Christians," it is appropriate to put that offensive term in its proper light. The Progressive movement is founded on the purpose of using politics to bring about an Eschaton on Earth. Progressives speak of goals such as eradicating poverty, ending war, insuring all persons against health care costs, and enabling all sentient beings to exercise fully their autonomy. As the name of the movement suggests, progressives believe that they are helping mankind move toward an ultimate goal, an evolved state of peaceful self-actualization. For this reason, the Progressive movement is well-suited to the secular worldview, which takes as its presuppositional foundation Darwinian naturalism.

For the same reasons, progressivism is completely antithetical to Christianity. Christians believe that the Eschaton is not a state to be achieved here on Earth, but rather a Person to be desired and pursued, the very Son of God. We also believe that humans do not have it in our power to end poverty, end war, or bring about self-actualization. Indeed, we are not called to do so. Instead, we are called to tend to the poor (whom, Jesus assured us, we would always have with us), preach the Gospel, and lead people to the Good.

A central tenet of Christianity is that man cannot improve upon what God has created. In the orthodox view, God allows us the privilege of helping to redeem what we have corrupted by our own rebellion. To suggest that self-absorbed humans -- much less governments, which are comprised of fallen humans with competing self-absorptions -- have it within our power to effect our own progress is a category mistake.

Furthermore, that suggestion belittles the crucifixion and resurrection of the Eschaton Man. There remains no work to be done, no higher plane to which we must progress, because Christ has done it. Past tense. To suggest that Christ left the job unfinished is to claim that his life, ministry, and death were less than what they truly were.

Conservatism and Christianity, by contrast, fit naturally with each other. Conservative Christians suffer from no internal contradictions in their thinking. We believe that Christ has completed the work of sanctification and that He allows us to participate in His work of redemption in personal relationships with Him and with our fellow man. We have the great privilege of participating in this work by assisting the poor (not taxing the rich), defending the unborn and infirmed, and preserving institutions -- marriage, the public square -- that enable mankind to be fully integrated, to pursue the Good.

The next time an acquaintance identifies herself as a "progressive Christian," ask her toward what she is progressing. You will, I think, find the answer enlightening.

Pushing legal institutions rightward

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has a terrific post about Steven Teles' review of the rise of the conservative legal movement. Conservatives were for much of the twentieth century absent from most influential legal institutions, such as the federal courts, public interest firms, and nationally-prominent law schools. That has changed, and not by accident.

Mirengoff notes that conservatives failed to influence legal institutions in the 1970's, when they imitated the tactics and strategies of liberals. They met with success only after they took a "supply side" approach to the problem. Beginning in the 1980's, conservative lawyers moved American legal institutions in "entrepreneurial, relatively informal, and idea-centric ways."

What Mirengoff (and perhaps Teles, though I have not read his book) fails to mention is that conservatives succeeded also by eschewing libertarianism and communicating true conservative principles and ideas. For example, it was not sufficient to oppose government action generally. That approach to lawyering had (and has) almost no effect upon legal institutions, which are capable of distinguishing between good government actions and bad ones. Conservatives found success only when originalists like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork began to articulate a theory of constitutional interpretation that opposes those government actions that are inconsistent with the constitutional text. In just over twenty years, originalism has gone from being a fringe theory to being the dominant interpretive mode in the federal judiciary. And though originalists still comprise a minority in the legal academy, we represent an influential and growing minority; liberals are taking us very seriously.

Ideas matter. And the ways in which we communicate ideas matter. These are additional lessons to be learned from the rise of the conservative legal movement.

HBO's John Adams

HBO’s new miniseries, John Adams, is tremendously important. As conservatives our highest calling is to conserve those things that have worked. Essentially, conservatism at its best conserves the principles of the American Founding – liberty, equality of rights, constitutionalism and the rule of law to name a few.

But our ability to conserve these principles – these "possessions of the mind" as a friend says it – has always depended to a large extent on the broad agreement about these principles across the political spectrum. These principles must be passed from one generation to another if our experiment in human freedom is to succeed. If it is true, as we often fear, that we are failing in this task then we are in danger of losing our true identity as Americans.

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been created, a monarchy or a republic. A republic,” he said. “If you can keep it.”

Franklin’s warning rings ever truer in a modern politically correct society that promotes multiculturalism over the American Founding. When these principles are attacked by our schools, universities, filmmakers, artists and even fellow citizens, the next generation gets lost in the bustle and the treasure is not transmitted.

This is why I am heartened by HBO’s new series. The films’ producers were faithful to the history which was originally encapsulated brilliantly by David McCullough in the book, John Adams.

As we watch the series we learn about the unassuming man from New England. In learning about Adams we learn about the principles that the Founders cherished – the principles that together embody the greatest nation on earth.

This series is a teacher and we need more of them.

PS - A housekeeping note: there will be light posting around here for a few days. I am 5,000 miles from home and without a dependable internet connection. Also, I know a few of our other contributors are out of pocket as well.

Liberals launch "rapid response policy blog"

The liberal self-described policy wonks over at John Podesta's Center for American Progress have launched a new website: The Wonk Room. The Politico reports:

“When issues pop up on the radar screen, we want to be the first with policy analysis and not let the sound bites go,” said John D. Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress.

“For the last several years, we’ve been trying to serve up policy ideas and analyses of where the country needs to go. Now, the public’s really paying attention.”

...“We want to get these ideas injected into the political dialogue,” Podesta said. “I’m sure the conservative think tanks will take issue with what progressive candidates are putting forward, and we’ll defend those ideas.”

I like the idea behind the blog but am under no allusions that objective policy study will trump pre-ordained liberal outcomes. Nevertheless, the model here is worth looking at.

Conservatives employed a similar strategy in the late 70's and early 80's. Before that time Think Tanks were nothing more than ivory towers for academic discussion. This discussion always occurred after the fact. Policy makers and conservatives staffers began to see the need for sound conservative policy analysis before the fact. After all, what good was a stellar policy paper about the disastrous consequences of the Carter Administration's energy policies if no legislator can read it before he casts his vote?

From this realization the Heritage Foundation was formed (in the years to come many other Think Tanks emulating the new model popped up). Heritage churned out white papers on important policy matters of the day. Most importantly, their white papers were in the hands of legislators well before the vote. You can thank Heritage and this model for many of the conservative victories over the last two and a half decades.

But today, a new model is needed as a supplement to the timely white paper strategy. That new model looks a lot like what the liberals at CAP are trying to do. They are right, we live in a sound bite world. Sound bites and winning the PR war on the 24 hour cable news channels is just as important as filling legislators' heads with sound policy analysis. Frankly, it might be more important given the fact that our Congress is increasingly made up of members who care more for their next election than they do for sound policy.

To win in this world, rapid response is indeed paramount. We need to be able to bring all the facts to bare as quickly as we can, and that cannot happen on dead trees. It must happen in real time on the internet which trickles onto live cable news.

Fortunately, conservatives are making headway in this arena as well. The folks at Heritage have launched The Foundry which for my money is running circles around the Wonk Room. Their average four posts a day are chock full of info that is relevant to what is happening at the moment in Congress. Check it out sometime and see if you agree.

The libertarians at CATO are no slouches either. Cato at Liberty is more bloggy than The Foundry, but it is still providing real time valuable info from the libertarian perspective.

Both of these blogs are a good start, but I can't help but think we need something even bigger.

Mitt in 2012?

Mitt Romney ran a flawed campaign in 2008. Instead of running as himself, he tried to run as the uber conservative. It didn't work, because he was seen as a disingenuous flip-flopper. The irony was that -- in my opinion -- he was the most conservative candidate.

But that is all behind us now.

Now, Romney appears to be looking toward 2012. This is good. Spend four years promoting conservative candidates and conservative ideas and the flip-flopper label will be gone.

According to two Republicans with knowledge of his plans, Romney, at some point during the next few weeks, intends to establish a new political action committee to help elect Republican candidates.

“We’re thinking about what new entity can be created to allow Governor Romney to remain politically active so he can raise money and campaign for Republicans, and advocate for the issues he cares about,” Eric Fehnrstrom, Romney’s long-time aide, said in an e-mail message…

Other Republicans close to Romney said that Romney was looking for ways to position himself as the ideas factory for the Republican party over the next four years, contributing policy to John McCain, if he’s in the White House, or to Republicans in Congress, if McCain is not.

Pence on McCain, Conservatism

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, a rising star in the conservative movement, made some comments about the McCain campaign today on Fox News Sunday:



Pence's name has been floated by some as a potential Vice Presidential pick for John McCain. The upsides to such a pick are obvious. Pence has conservative credentials with both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, he is well spoken, articulate and telegenic. Plus he adds a youthful feel to a ticket that is likely to battle Mr. Youthy himself.

The downside to this pick is it makes the ticket legislator-heavy and lacking executive experience.

Government is getting dumber

I have referenced David Frum's work here before. Needless to say, I am a fan. In this interview with Marketplace, Frum reminds us that politicians today -- on both sides of the aisle -- are guilty of turning back the clock on lessons we have already learned.

The whole notion of a fiscal stimulus bill in Washington these days necessarily ignores past lessons learned in the market. As Frum points out, "Fiscal stimulus almost always arrives too late, after the recovery has already begun. Worse, the usual result is a net economic nothing. The government borrows to give to consumers, who in turn use the money to reduce borrowing. Demand remains constant."

But our politicians today are not as concerned with good policy based on past learning as they are with good politics based on poll numbers in their home states.

More Frum:

A third lesson, big banks are stuck with hundreds of billions in bad real estate loans. That's also happened before, in the 1980s savings and loan crisis. Back then, everybody had to learn that the best way to unravel bad credit was fast. Yet once again we're hearing prominent politicians urging rate freezes and foreclosure moratoriums, postponing the inevitable at great cost.

We like to think that we get smarter as we get older, and that society makes intellectual progress from year to year -- not on present evidence. It would be bad enough if we did not know better. It's worse. We have unlearned what we do know.

Amen to that. Hat Tip: Kendall Harmon.

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.

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.

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.

So long, Rudy

Say what you will about Guliani's candidacy for the White House (I, for one, was always skeptical about his commitment to appointing originalist judges to SCOTUS and the lower federal courts), the man is a great American and a terrific leader. Watching his speech from Florida last evening was a melancholic moment; it sure seemed like a concession speech.

More than that, it was a moment when I was proud to be a conservative. Even (arguably) the most liberal contender on the Republican side gets it. Rudy understands the existential threat that Islamic fascism poses to our nation. He acknowledges evil and understands how to resist it. He is optimistic about our nation and its future. And he believes that the solution to what ails us is not found in bigger government but rather in the American people themselves. In short, as President he would have been vastly superior to anyone on the Democratic side.

In a presidential election cycle in which conservatives are tempted to despondency, it is worth remembering that it is better to be a servant in the house of conservatism than a ruler in the house of the liberals.

Audacity or shamelessness?

Work prevented me from commenting on this article yesterday, but I cannot let it pass into the e-archives without criticism. Michael Brendan Dougherty suggests in his article, The Audacity of Huck, that Huckabee's importance in this election cycle may arise out of his representation of a new evangelical political movement. According to Dougherty, Huckabee leads an evangelical groundswell that, no longer content to play second violin in the Republican orchestra, is bucking the conservative establishment.

I am not the only one here who thinks a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for both the Republican party and the conservative movement. And perhaps I am not representative of evangelicals generally. But Mike Huckabee does not represent me. And I am anything but an establishment conservative. I grew up the oldest of six children in a ten-foot trailer. As a formerly-poor, currently-evangelical conservative, I resent Mike Huckabee's demagoguery.

And it is here that Dougherty touches upon the most irritating aspect of the Huckabee campaign. Huck invokes the identity politics that historically has been within the special purview of the Left. It is insulting to suggest that we evangelicals have a moral disagreement about poverty (for example). I expect that type of insult from Barack Obama. To hear it from Huckabee is galling.

I would love nothing more than to vote for a thoughtful, courageous evangelical candidate for President. So when Huckabee first announced his candidacy I was excited. I was prepared to support him. I wanted to like him. Then he opened his mouth and started talking. And it's all gone downhill from there.

Let me be clear: Mike Huckabee does not speak for this evangelical.

The Senate GOP Cave In

Erick Erickson at Red State yesterday got his hands on some emails flying around the Senate this week. The long and short of it is that the emails confirmed what we knew was coming. A staffer for the Senate GOP's number three in leadership has made it clear to other Senate staff that that the leadership team is looking to push legislation that is either authored by Democrats or has a Democrat cosponsor.

In short, bipartisanship is the new buzzword in the Senate Republican cloakroom.

This morning's Roll Call confirms the Red State post. John Stanton reports:

Senate Republicans outlined a modest election-year agenda Wednesday based on the cooperative, bipartisan approach that new Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) has pushed while avoiding issues like immigration and earmark reform that have caused rifts within the party.

According to internal Conference e-mails and participants in a daylong, closed-door Conference retreat at the Library of Congress, Senate Republicans will rely largely on supporting legislation that has garnered bipartisan support regardless of who the lead sponsor is.

Bipartisanship is not in and of itself a bad thing. But the sleepy senators in the Republican Party have made the mistake of reading a poll that says the American people are tired of partisanship and concluding that they want the Republican Party to play nice with all things liberal.

As I have said before, that is a sure fire strategy for permanent minority status. If we prove that we can work with the Democrats to pass legislation (and wait until you see the actual atrocious contents of these would-be bipartisan bills) then all we have proved is that there is no need to once again bestow the majority on Republicans. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the go-along-to-get-along crowd in the Senate could care less who is in the minority or majority, so long as business as usual in the Senate is maintained.

Thanks to the Framers and fortunately for conservatives, the House of Representatives is not as insulated as the Senate. Boehner continues to make moves, and he may over time be able to have some influence over his Senate counterparts.

But I get the impression that the Senate will continue to be unresponsive to the deep desire of the American people to see bold leadership based on principled beliefs -- not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship. Sadly, it may take another drubbing at the polls for the old men of the Senate to wake up. Let's hope the House guys and our eventual nominee can save us from that disaster.

Newt: Reagan was a unique, one-time personality

I know this is the the second Newt clip I have posted here in as many days, but I think he is making an important point.

Newt: End of Reagan Era, Time to Redefine

Yesterday Newt declared an end to the Reagan era and the beginning of a new era for the GOP in which the Party must "redefine" itself based on people's needs.




On one hand, it probably needed to be said. However, the "redefine" talk needs to be approached with caution. There are many who would use this as an opportunity to remake the Party of Reagan -- the Party of limited government, values and national defense -- into a Party we no longer recognize. I think Newt would be a good steward of the Party's heritage, but not some others. One person in particular comes to mind.

UPDATE: Newt elaborates...