Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

I recently received an odd, frantic email from some wannabe politico in search of a conservative blogger who would write a column about Obamacare and jobs to save Tom Corbett’s re-election campaign from itself. As if such a Column to End All Columns could be written.

I don’t want to be too hard on this fellow, as I too sometimes suffer from wannabe-ism. Far less so than in the past, as I become more jaded and more likely to just give up and flee the state. I have little hope for an electorate that thought “binders full of women” was a substantive and revealing gotcha against Romney. I’m still not even exactly sure what that binders thing was all about.
(more…)

Civilization

Posted: August 5, 2014 by veeshir in Conservatism, I'm Afraid I Can't Blog That, Op/Sped, PEBKAC

Ace links to a Federalist post about atheists (and agnostics) being able to be conservatives.

Let me say that I am agnostic. I think an atheist says, “There is no God, god or gods.” while I say, “I don’t know.”

Maybe there is a God or god or gods, who knows? I will say that, in my opinion, maybe.

But then we get to which God, god or gods? As Heinlein said, all of them have to go in the hat. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that’s the way I see it.

Maybe Zeus is pissed off we’re not sacrificing white bulls to him or Huitzilipochti is pissed off we’re not sacrificing people, Baal has to be partly happy with our abortion rate (especially partial-birth abortion), but we’re not exactly sacrificing babies to him so his happiness is qualified.

Personally, I’m rooting for a Jonathan Livingston Seagull sort of deal of going up, sideways or down the ladder.

A quote from the Federalist link

My point is not just that it is possible to offer a secular defense of free markets and liberty and the moral values that support them. My point that is these arguments have a power to persuade that cannot be matched just by quoting chapter and verse from the Bible.

Exactly.

I’ve been Troll for a Day a number of times because I try to explain that I can be in favor of civilization without believing in God.

Take something simple like traffic.

A lane ends on the highway, so what happens? If you’re in any metropolitan region, most people line up but a bunch of assholes have to be first so they screw the whole thing up.

If everybody worked together we’d all go through more quickly, the people being assholes screw it up for not just the polite people but for all the assholes behind them as they force traffic down to a crawl.

Civilization is a compilation of like situations, if we all work together, in a Christian manner, then life is better for all of us.

You do not need to believe in God to realize that or to believe that Jesus was probably the very best, most wise western philosopher ever (Bush should not have taken shit over that, he was right in my opinion), certainly the one whose philosophy has led to the best outcome for the most people.

Besides, many of the worst, non-commie, things we’ve done to each other is in service to a religion. There are few, non-commie, things more scary than a despot who thinks he’s doing God’s will. I will also say that communism/socialism/nannarchism is a religion without a god. Today’s leftism is a religion with a god, Gaia, and we’ve pissed her off by being imprius so…global worming.

 

My point, if we stop fucking with each other, life is better for everybody. It’s that simple.

You do not need a religion to believe that, as Ace says, you merely need to look at empirical evidence, logic and results.

It should be noted, of course, that religious people do not rely exclusively on religious precepts to make their cases. They, too, point to observable evidence and make secular (math-based, policy outcome based) arguments.

 

Preach it brother.

Striking a bold move, Michigan Congressman Kerry Bentivolio returned his Chamber of Commerce award.

Daily Caller:
“If you notice, they call it the Spirit of Enterprise award, not the Spirit of Free Enterprise Award,” [Bentivolio's chief of staff Rob] Wasinger told The Daily Caller via email. “Crony capitalism is alive and well at the Chamber of Commerce.”

Naturally, the Chamber now supports his opponent.

Just in case you were confused about who the good guy is here, Bentivolio has quite a respectable conservative report card with an ACU score of 88, a Club for Growth score of 88, and a Heritage Action score of 83.

As previously discussed, the Chamber is also attempting to primary Justin Amash, who sports even more impressive credentials with an ACU score of 89.22, a Club for Growth score of 99, and a Heritage Action score  of 89.  The Club for Growth has explicitly endorsed Amash in the primary.

Ricochet?

Posted: June 9, 2014 by socklessjoe in Brevity etc., Conservatism

Anybody subscribe to Ricochet?

Recommend it?

I’ve been listening to two of the free podcasts, and they’re pretty good.  Problem being I don’t really have time to read (let alone post) as much as I used to.

Ran across this interview with George Will, who makes reference to fissures and factions within the Tea Party as being a healthy thing. While there have long been competing groups (e.g. Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, etc.), I have not noticed much ideological difference among them.

Thinking about this idea of ideologically differing factions, I believe this could be a useful concept to explore for those of us who might want to strike a note of dissent within the GOP, but disassociate ourselves from some of the nutters and fraudsters.

What factions currently exist that might be called “tea party” of some stripe?  Are these the same factions that have always populated the conservative movement?  I’d really like to get away from something as ideologically trivial (however tactically important) as Freedomworks vs. AFP. (Or Freedomworks vs. Freedomworks.)

Presenting this link with essentially no commentary other than to also point you towards Ace’s recent post on the Tea Party.

Arthur Brooks of AEI on “a conservative social justice agenda“.  (And the aforementioned Ace post.)

Looking for some freestyle commentary from the readership here.

I ask this (1) as somebody who has a strong dislike for Mike Huckabee, and (2) rhetorically, as he committed no real offense.

The supposed transgression was so subtle that David Gregory could not express it with any precision when questioning Rand Paul on Meet the Press, choosing only to play the clip, and then ask, “Is this helpful?”

Not satisfied with Senator Paul’s response, Gregory followed up, “My question, about whether you think it’s appropriate for the party, key figures in the party, to be talking about women, women’s health, women’s bodies, and the role of the federal government related to those things?”

Whoa, whoa, WHOA!  So Republicans are not even allowed to broach the subject of the federal role in matters of women’s heath?!?  When did this rule go into effect?

So there’s this highly controversial –frankly, unconstitutional on many dimensions– federal mandate forcing all Americans into insurance policies that, in part, pay for abortifacient drugs regardless of their religious (or secular) objections, and Republicans are just not supposed to express any opinions on the absurdity of the matter.

Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.

I defend Huckabee in this despite my strong dislike for him.  He’s not particularly conservative from a fiscal perspective, and has no qualms about launching demagogic attacks on those darned greedy Wall Street folks who have the nerve to call him out on it.  Perhaps more important to the issue at hand, he’s a complete hypocrite, having signed a sort of birth control coverage mandate as Governor.

But in the context of recent events, he has committed no crime except to use the word “libido” in a sentence that was more than six words long, and thus impossible for a journalist to parse.  Ace and Allah have taken a stab at why his suggestions concerning women’s libidos, even though he was attributing the thought to the Democrats, betrayed a judgmental attitude about recreational sex.  There is almost something to this, but Huck continued, “…because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government…”  A more complete reading of the sentence diminishes this interpretation.

I think, having been caught with their pants down, the media has determined to find some fault with what was said.  What you’re seeing here is a bunch of wagon-circling and butt covering.

[Related post: My send-up of the Sandra Fluke controversy from March of 2012.]