Responses

Cromagnum, in response to my post on Chesterton, has posted a useful and informative comment here. It reads, in part (an excerpt from Eugenics and Other Evils follows):

The Socialist system, in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other. It seems extraordinarily simple and even obvious; and so it is. It is too obvious to be true. But while it is obvious, it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.

Pundita has written a tour de force response to my post on Senator Richard Lugar: “Wikileaks plus first disbursements from 2009 US aid bill for Pakistan already under scrutiny for graft. Senator Richard Lugar please take note.”

In a wide ranging post, she makes note of three key issues:

1. Congressional oversight: If you’re having a hard time wrapping your mind around the concept that vital information would be withheld from key congressional defense/intelligence committees — which can’t make informed recommendations without such data — while thousands of low-level civilian government and military employees had access to the data, you should listen to the interview; it’s enough to make your blood boil if you’re an American.

2. Allegations of corruption in the distribution of aid monies: Two months after his remarks came the news that even the first small disbursements were already in trouble due to charges of corruption. Because aid monies disbursed to the Pakistani government become the sovereign property of the government and thus immune to oversight the 2009 aid bill aimed to get around the problem by disbursing the money to NGOs. The workaround simply opened another avenue for graft:

3. The sometimes head-scratching priorities and decision-making of American officials: Yet the revelation doesn’t fully explain why the U.S. military and executive and congressional branches have consistently made bad calls on Pakistan because this has been going on for more than a half century — ever since the U.S. first became involved with Pakistan. Yet these bad calls weren’t seen as such until NATO floundered in Afghanistan. That finally put a crimp in the style of Washington’s anti-Russia crowd but over decades the crowd and its counterpart in Europe looked the other way while Pakistan ran riot because they saw the country as a weapon first against the Soviet Union then against Russia.

No matter who wins the presidential election in 2012, I wager that many of the structural problems that have plagued our foreign policy in recent years will remain. One of the most appealing aspects of the Tea Party movement is its “pay attention!” ethos. Complain about elites all you want, they can’t cause so many problems if we citizens are performing our own oversight functions.

Update: Thanks for the link, Professor Reynolds!

There are some very good comments in the comments section. I will try and respond more fully at a later date.

“Why Does the Media Love to Pick On Palin?”

John Lott gets it:

Unfortunately, over the last couple of weeks, even conservative media pundits such as Mona Charen, Peggy Noonan, George Will, Joe Scarborough and Matt Labash see these attacks and warn that she can’t win the presidency. They even buy into the attacks on her judgment, intelligence, and competence. But what these conservatives don’t appreciate is that Palin is being attacked because she is smart and effective, not because she is dumb.
 
[. . .]
 
What Palin’s conservative critics need to recognize is that any other candidate who posed the same threat to Democrats would also be attacked as viciously. The desire to give up on Palin and move on to another potential Republican presidential nominee is understandable. But there is a reason why the media wants to take Palin out.

His column is worth reading in full.

Anyone who thinks that a turning away from Palin by libertarian/conservative/independent voters would bolster prospects for other Republicans is delusional. The abandonment under fire of a candidate by her erstwhile supporters would merely confirm the effectiveness of the media-Democratic strategy and encourage similar attacks against whichever remaining prospective Republican candidates appear to have the best chances of defeating Obama. Mitt Romney? The media love to treat him as the Republican front-runner when, in reality, his failure to repudiate his Massachusetts health-care “reform” disaster probably dooms his candidacy. But watch someone like Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie start to poll well against Obama and the smear machine will be turned on with full force. It’s already going after Christie with recycled bogus accusations of expense-account padding. No doubt if Daniels starts to poll well his eccentric marital history will be twisted to make him seem strange.

Palin was an obscure libertarian governor with wide popularity in her home state before McCain picked her as his VP. Nobody cared about her except Alaskans and her national libertarian fans. As Lott points out, she was attacked because she is effective, not because of her supposed personal failings. (Did the media care about Obama’s personal failings?)

Don’t believe for a moment that any Republican candidate who is half as politically effective as Palin is won’t get the same treatment that she has received. There may be valid reasons to reject her as a presidential candidate, but the fact that she has been the target of unprecedented smear campaigns isn’t one of them.

Chicago Tea Party Event: Wednesday, December 1 at 7:00 PM

The next meeting of the Chicago Tea Party will be held on Wednesday, December 1 at 7:00 PM at Blackie’s, 755 S. Clark. (Or sign-up through Facebook.)

I am going to this meeting. I have never been to a Tea Party meeting, so far, for some reason. I recently exchanged emails with Steve Stevlic, Director, Tea Party Patriots Chicago. I look forward to meeting him.

Perhaps some of our ChicagoBoyz readers will be there as well.

UPDATE: Note this is a monthly event, occurring the first Wednesday of every month.

The featured speaker will be Adam Andrzejewski from For the Good of Illinois. Adam is promoting transparency in Illinois government through the Open the Books project. This is a strong added inducement to attend. Please look at the links to his organizations above, and see the good work he is continuing to do.

I supported Adam on this blog when he was running for the Republican nomination for governor. I had the pleasure of speaking to Adam recently, and I said, and I firmly believe, that had he been nominated, the energy and excitement that caused a GOP groundswell nationwide would have carried him to victory as well. Adam would have presented a real alternative. (As I also told him, he is the only person I have ever voted for, not counting Reagan in 1984, who I actually thought would do a good job, rather than simply voting against the Democrat.) Brady ran a lifeless and low-risk campaign, a typical idea-free Illinois Republican campaign, that was completely at odds with the spirit of 2010. He stumbled to defeat in a year where victory was there for the grasping, with the Republicans picking Obama’s old Senate seat and four Houses seats in Illinois. There are times when fortune really does favor the bold, and this year was one of them. As a result we in Illinois are stuck once again with the feckless and hopelessly wrongheaded Pat Quinn, while the state swirls down the drain, an Island of Blue in a Red Midwestern sea, a big, out of step, bankrupt state like New York or Calilfornia. Too bad.

As it happens, more or less by luck, I was at the first-ever Tea Party protest in Chicago on February 27, 2009 on Daley Plaza. My office at that time was across the street, and I walked over just to see what was going on. I recall it was very cold. The crowd was well-behaved, with a smattering of obvious psychos, as you inevitably find at any gathering on Daley Plaza. There were a lot of obviously home-made signs, some of which were clever. I also recall someone was talking (I think it was Dan Proft) and whoever the speaker was said the word “Repubican” and got an immediate, loud, angry BOO from many in the crowd. That was striking. The crowd seemed more anti-partisan than non-partisan, and certainly not pro-Republican. I said to myself: “hmmm, something new and interesting is astir in the land, a great and angry giant may at last be awakening” or prescient and prophetic words to that general effect. (You will have to take my word for it.) However, the movement that was getting started then has greatly exceeded my hopes and expectations, and I think we have still only seen the beginning of a historic mass movement.

Before, During and After the Election

I have a ritual on elections. I volunteer to be a pollwatcher. I have done this several times. It makes me feel like I am “doing something” even though it is probably, on the margin, nothing. I am in a state of suppressed hysteria and can’t sit still or focus on Election Day, anyway.

This time I signed up with the Republican Lawyers Committee. They had a meeting a week or so before the election at the Union League club. It was a class, basically a primer on election law. It had CLE credit, too. Woo hoo. I went to that, and it was pretty good, and I met some cool people.

One guy there was acting really weird, demanding to know why he could not challenge a voter who did not speak English and “does not belong in this county.” His demeanor was all wrong. He slumped in chair, talked too loudly and was offensively argumentative. Other people argued back against him in a sane way. Maybe it is not paranoid to think he was a plant, from some Lefty blog or something, fishing for a chance to talk about how the Republican lawyers are bigoted against Spanish-speakers. He got nowhere, and left in the middle of the presentation. Strange.

Read more

This is the FRAME that wins 2012

“Can you govern yourself, or do you need a Federal Czar to govern your life for you?”

That question should be asked of every interested person who might vote in the next few elections. Everyone.

“Can you find a doctor, a light-bulb, or control the flow of your toilet, or should one of our Federal Czars take that decision out of your hands?”

When framed in this fashion, the answers to these questions probably have a 75-25 pro-freedom response rate, even in today’s electorate.

This “frame” (see Lakoff and Overton Window)  articulates the central message that all Republicans, conservative Democrats, the Tea Parties/Patriots, as well as the think tank types should be shouting from the hilltops.

Once brought to consciousness in this philosophical context, virtually every “self-government” policy initiative can be promoted on the foundation of “self-government”. Most Americans are hard-wired to agree with the conservative view on this.

Read more