conservatism

Back to Birthers

Calvin Freiburger 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, conservatism, dishonesty, extremism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, hypocrisy, Obama birth certificate

Lefties are caterwauling about a new poll that purports to show that a quarter of Americans think Obama wasn’t born in the US. Some thoughts:

A.) The last time you guys sounded the alarm on a poll purporting to show insanity on the Right, it turned out to be bogus.

B.) If anyone thinks the Right is egging the Birthers on, he’ll have to square that theory with the fact that the list of conservative and Republican voices which rejects Birthrism includes, but is not limited to:

– RNC Chair Michael Steele
– National Review
– Human Events
– American Spectator
– Glenn Beck
– Michelle Malkin
– Ann Coulter
– Andrew Breitbart & others at his websites
– HotAir.com
– Townhall.com
– RedState.com
– NewsRealBlog.com

In other words, anybody who’s anybody on the Right. Do I wish these morons would shut up and go the heck away? Of course. But the Right as a whole has done everything it can fairly be expected to do to stand against them…

C.) …which is more than your side can say about Michael Moore, whose lies about the Bush Administration were just as bad (arguably worse), yet the Democratic establishment embraced his film wholeheartedly?

D.) Where was your hand-wringing in 2006, when a poll showed that 1/3 of Americans thought the federal government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

E.) Gee, I guess disgruntled Hillary supporters shouldn’t have started this Birther nonsense, should they have?

Conservatism vs. Liberalism

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, Boots and Sabers, conservatism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Left, liberalism, politics, responsibility, Scott Feldstein, Wisconsin

In the continuing battle over Scott Feldstein’s political character assassination masquerading as thought, Boots & Sabers commenter A Son of Liberty has provided this effective summary of liberalism’s folly, and how conservatism answers it:

Liberals have politics that are often based on feeling while conservatives base their beliefs on the reality of the situation. If you are naive in regard to the results of the policies you support, then of course you feel that the folks who point out the problems will seem mean to you.

Welfare, food stamps, public housing, free health care… all programs that are the backbone of the modern liberal social net. It just feels good to vote for them and then sit back with a smug feeling that you have helped the poor… you’ve made things better and punished those bad rich people at the same time. After all, they don’t deserve the wealth… the poor gave it to them… you are just doing what is right. Yay.

The problem there is that the cradle to grave care that you so generously offer from the pockets of others has turned into a new king of slavery… slavery of the spirit. People have the basics of life… but there is no way to climb out of the nest. Get a job and we cut you off…. why work for the same pay that you get for free? That system has resulted in millions of citizens who have no connection to the concept of self sufficiency and the pride that comes from paying your own way and working to better yourself. Families were also attacked through the liberal application of policies that penalized families with two parents. Ridiculous? Yes, but it was all done with the best intentions.

Modern slavery put people in a position that they see no hope of working their way out of. Politicians, teachers, media, neighbors… everyone points out that they can never get ahead… so they don’t. Some of our inner city kids actually believe that education is a bad thing…. it marks you as one of “them” … it’s actually looked down upon by some groups. Ridiculous? Yes, but it’s a natural human instinct to justify your actions… and so they do. I can’t get ahead because “they” won’t let me. I’m poor, black, Hispanic, female, a single mom… insert whatever class of victim you like into the excuse matrix…. the result is the same. Generational slavery on the governments farm… at the hands of people who claim to want to help you.

Learned helplessness legislated and enforced by the state.

Yeah, that is what being naive got us…. and then, to protect the system, the power brokers have labeled the realists as uncaring, hateful, racist, sexist, bigoted … whatever works to maintain the system.

That is where Scott’s original definition of conservative traces it’s etymology… and that is why we are so offended by the malicious character assassination contained within. No more dancing around the truth.

Bad Argument of the Day

Calvin Freiburger abortion, big government, conservatism, debate, drug legalization, drugs, government, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, limited government

Whenever somebody wants to argue for keeping or making something legal, but doesn’t want to be seen as liking that something (like abortion or drugs), you can be sure he’ll deploy the argument that, well, that might be all well and good theoretically, but it just wouldn’t work in the real world, because people would still find ways to do it anyway.

Of course, laws are rarely enacted with the expectation that they’ll reduce something’s occurrence to zero or near-zero. Legal prohibitions are meant to identify what society finds intolerable, prevent as much of it as can reasonably be expected in a free, imperfect society, and punish those who do it anyway. The argument against prohibiting abortion or drugs because people will still obtain abortions and drugs is no more logical than it would be to argue that it’s pointless to prohibit murder, rape or robbery because in 2008 we had 16,272 murders, 89,000 rapes, and 441,855 robberies, despite long-standing laws firmly punishing all three.

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger abortion, Arizona immigration law, blogosphere, conservatism, Great Britain, health care, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, libertarianism, NewsReal

British health care: not quite as romantic as previously thought.

I was in another debate firestorm at NewsReal this weekend (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). The short version: provocatively standing up to Islamofascism is good, accidentally suggesting that conservatives support genocide is really bad.

Arizona’s immigration law works! Imagine that…

Food for thought: what’s the difference between libertarianism and conservatism?

Neil at Eternity Matters takes on a common pro-choice lie.

Does Nikki Haley Want Affirmative Action for Political Parties?

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, Democrats, GOP, moderates, Nikki Haley, Republican Party, RINOs, stupidity

One of the Right’s latest rising stars is Nikki Haley, Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina. There’s certainly a lot to like about her, but before getting their hopes up too high, her fans should note something she recently said on “Hannity”:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZu2GaGeu

I don’t want a House full of Republicans, I don’t want a House full of Democrats. It’s the mix that makes it work.

The Founding Fathers did discuss the importance of moderation and counterbalancing forces in government, to keep radical changes from being implemented too easily, but I don’t think quotas for each party is quite what they had in mind, especially when one of those parties doesn’t simply disagree on certain policies, but stands directly opposed to the core principles upon which America was founded.

If the war against radical Islam must be won, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for defeat. If unborn babies have a right to life, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for their murder. If Americans have a right to choose what to do with their own money, bear arms to protect themselves, or any number of other things, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who would thwart those rights.

Besides, the Republican Party is so divided on both principle and strategy that they hardly need Democrats to keep them on their toes. Nikki Haley may turn out to be a great governor, but that’s one status quo we shouldn’t expect her to upend.

NRB vs. FrumForum: Gee, I Wonder Who’s Telling the Truth?

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, conservatism, David Frum, David Horowitz, David Swindle, dishonesty, NewsReal

David Horowitz and David Swindle have decided to can one of NewsRealBlog’s contributors, Alex Knepper. Knepper, who also contributes to David Frum’s FrumForum, claims that he was punished because “Horowitz is not interested in posts that take Ann Coulter to task over the war in Afghanistan,” and Frum eagerly repeats Knepper’s claims, taking them as—surprise!—more evidence that right-wingers are circling the wagons around their “extremists.”

David Swindle responds to Knepper’s allegations here, explaining that the tone of his Coulter critique, not simply the act of critiquing her, was the issue with his final NRB submission, and that either way, he wasn’t simply fired over a disagreement over tone—it was the last in a string of disappointments (including some, um, interesting views about sex) from Knepper. Knepper fires back here.

As NRB’s editor, Swindle is in a much better position to respond to the specifics if he so chooses than I am, so I’ll leave that to him. But I do have a couple thoughts about which side has more credibility.

First, the idea that NRB can’t take criticism of Coulter is preposterous. I should know—my very first post for the website did just that.

Second, the website is extremely comfortable with passionate disagreement among contributors on a lot of issues, many of which are arguably bigger than what somebody thinks about a particular pundit. A few examples:

Third, as I pointed out last week, we already know that David Frum’s standards of honesty are scandalously low – up to and including REPEATING SLANDER against people if it supports Frum’s agenda. Until Frum owns up to his past misdeeds, every word that appears on FrumForum should be read with extreme skepticism by the handful of readers who still waste their time there.

Is Ann Coulter Out of Her Mind?

Calvin Freiburger Ann Coulter, conservatism, Republican Party, War on Terror ,

I love Ann Coulter, but her latest column, in which she defends Michael Steele’s Afghanistan comments, bothers me. A lot.

Yes, she and Steele are right to call Obama and the Democrats out on their posturing about Afghanistan as the “good war” and Iraq as the bad one. Yes, the populations of the two countries are vastly different. No, I don’t know what the best strategy in Afghanistan is (check out David Forsmark and John Guardiano for two competing schools of thought).

Further, in our zeal to make these points, conservatives must be careful not to lose sight of what our ultimate goal should be in Afghanistan—and whatever we decide, we need to stick to it regardless of who’s in the White House. Ann punts on that question, and I don’t recall her voicing any of these concerns during the Bush years. But Afghanistan is “Obama’s war” might be true as far as it goes, but focusing on that aspect on it diminishes the significance of the war and obscures the core question of whether or not America should be there. And yes, in calling it a war “of Obama’s choosing,” Steele did suggest that it wasn’t worth fighting, and that Democrats held a monopoly on the blame for it.

Coulter suggests we’ve already won in Afghanistan, and that a minimal troop presence there to “prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence” is sufficient (wait a minute—weren’t we trying to leave behind a government & military stable enough to do that on its own?).

What disturbs me most is, near the end, how easily—and suddenly—Ann lends credence to the old liberal trope about “neoconservatives” being for “permanent war.” One would think a pundit who’s repeatedly been on the receiving end of such smears would think twice before deploying it herself.

Come on, Ann.  For years, I’ve defended you as better than this.  Don’t prove me wrong now.

Speaking of Ignoring the American Founding…

Calvin Freiburger abortion, blogosphere, conservatism, David Swindle, drugs, Founding Fathers, liberalism, libertarianism, NewsReal

Concluding NRB’s recent drug legalization debate is a post entitled, “This is What Happens When the Founders’ Philosophy of Government Is Ignored.”  Setting aside the fact that just how the Founders would have treated drugs remains very much an open question, it seems to me that, given another recent NRB debate, a reminder of what else can happen when America’s founding principles are disregarded is in order. (Content Warning) Continue reading →

Conservatism Can’t Survive Without the Pro-Life Movement, Part II

Calvin Freiburger 2010, 2012, abortion, blogosphere, capitalism, conservatism, Constitution, David Swindle, foreign policy, Founding Fathers, Islamofascism, Israel, judicial branch, liberalism, libertarianism, liberty, NewsReal, Republican Party, resercons, War on Terror

In Part I, I argue that it would be politically foolish for the Right to further backpedal or abandon the pro-life cause. Here I want to make the case that the right to life truly is inseparable both from core conservatism and from any meaningful effort to advance conservative ideas—that, in fact, pro-abortion tendencies actually endanger the prospects of those who value limited government, the free market, and strong national defense.

As I explained on June 15, abortion is an affront to the Declaration of Independence. As the unjust taking of a human life, it is wrong for the same reason slavery, theft, assault, honor killings, rape, eminent domain abuse, and individual health insurance mandates are wrong: they are all violations of human liberty and natural rights.  Accordingly, society justly protects its citizens from them via law for the same reason.  As long as conservatism still “holds these truths to be self-evident” that all men have “certain unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and as long as conservatism still accepts that “governments are instituted among men” for the purpose of “secur[ing] these rights,” then philosophically-consistent conservatives have no choice but to oppose legalized abortion. Nobody can support abortion in good conscience without either honestly confronting this conundrum head-on, or asking himself what definition of “conservatism” he’s been operating under all this time.

That pro-choice views are an egregious exception to conservatives’ and libertarians’ pro-liberty rhetoric should be obvious. What may be less obvious—but is no less true—is that such dubious thinking cannot help but undermine other core conservative principles and efforts. Continue reading →