I’m going to be offline for the next week, since I’ll be in Washington, DC for the Young America’s Foundation’s annual Student Conference, in which an impressive lineup of conservative thinkers will be speaking on how to advance conservatism, including:
Young People Against Socialism
Dr. Jeffrey Nelson
Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney
Zach Howell
YAF will be live-streaming the video on their website, and I’ll be sure to blog about the experience upon my return. See ya next week!
The Reporter has published my latest commentary on civil unions in Wisconsin, predictably bringing angry liberals out of the woodwork. It’s interesting to note how predictable, one-note, and disinterested in what’s actually said, these guys generally are, and it’s important for conservatives to know what logical fallacies, sleights of hand, and personal attacks to expect when stepping into the ring with a liberal.
Take, for instance, the assumption that religion plays a leading role in my opinion, despite never being mentioned. Liberal orthodoxy dictates that virtually no conservative opinion, especially on social issues, can possibly be held in good faith, so there must be an ulterior motive—in this case, hatred of gays and religious dogma. Liberal orthodoxy further dictates that the slightest hint of religion (real or otherwise) in an opinion or discussion is something to be feared and immediately disqualified from consideration.
The other main objection is that, without civil unions, gays are denied equal rights. I reject this premise entirely, for several reasons, the short version being just as I said in the article: “Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).” Moreover, I say “so-called rights” because most marriage benefits are not “rights” at all, but rather provisions offered as part of a contract.
I made clear that same-sex marriage was not the issue at dispute in my letter—the main topic was this measure’s constitutionality. However, you’ll find that same-sex marriage advocates tend to struggle with the concept of “staying on topic,” and will completely skip your argument, instead jumping straight to why you’re evil for not supporting gay marriage. If you refuse to let them change the subject and insist on staying on topic, you will be mischaracterized as either ducking the question or admitting defeat.
Regardless of whether or not you actually said anything demeaning towards homosexuals, no matter how much you insist you also want gay people to be able to visit their ailing partners in the hospital, you should still expect condescending lectures about how gays are people too, how homosexuality is predetermined (both propositions I accept, by the way…not that these armchair psychiatrists care), etc. You will be psychoanalyzed with utter certitude, your opinions attributed to fear, hatred, or ignorance. References to violence against gay Americans, black segregation, and even al-Qaeda will be thrown about with reckless abandon.
How do they know? They just do. They care, you don’t. Bigot.
Also be prepared for raw hatred & childishness, such as casual references to “half-baked turd[s] of imflammatory mush” (this gem, incidentally, is from the author of the Daily Kos entry linked above, and once responded, badly, to another of my letters, noteworthy for its hypocrisy: she claims she doesn’t “want to write in anger.”).
You may even have outright lies told about you, and you may see long-simmering grudges boil over—bravely aired behind veils of anonymity, naturally. “FDL54935” says:
Mr. Freiburger got his 15 seconds of fame since his parents went WAY overboard on a school issue. The man (Calvin) is one of the weakest writers in this community. If my sources are correct, he is barely making it through community college. I know times are tough and this is an issue that needs to be debated, but please limit editorials to those with an IQ over 75.
The issue to which our zip code refers is the case when a Fond du Lac High School teacher complained about my saying “God Bless America” over the school intercom, which the administration subsequently lied about.
Now, maybe Mr. Code was misled by news outlets that falsely reported my family was angry over the school’s speed in handling the matter, rather than their dishonesty. Maybe he’s been lied to by propagandists whose sham reporting completely distorts the incident. Then again, perhaps he’s the one doing the lying…after all, he’s angry enough about it to lie about my education, citing “sources” that probably don’t exist. The real school I attend isn’t a community college, is nothing to sneeze at, and I think making Hillsdale’s Dean’s List for the second year in a row is a little better than “barely making it through.” (By the way, if you have the audacity to defend yourself by citing such facts, you can probably expect to be accused of bragging at some point, too.)
Hmm, it almost makes you wonder whether or not FDL54935’s got some kind of personal connection to the Fond du Lac School District…(crazy thought, I know. The educational community is much too professional for that sort of thing, right?)
Hatred, anger, condescension, childishness, demonization, and persecution are all the rage (no pun intended) among the modern American Left, including the gay marriage movement. For some liberals, I suspect, the root cause may be an insecure need for self-affirmation; for others, it is a manifestation of the liberal impulse to delegitimize opposing speech as soon as possible, to give it as little consideration as possible. The Left wants to intimidate, not deliberate.
Don’t let them. Don’t let yourself be shamed or silence by a movement that’s not exactly pure as the new-fallen snow itself. Never apologize for believing that marriage matters.
I’ve written before about how the anger resercons like David Frum have for Pat Toomey is both unprincipled and foolish. Today, with the 2010 midterms still over a year off, Arlen Specter’s once-profound lead has disappeared: Quinnipiac has Specter at 45%, Toomey 44%, “and voters say 49 – 40 percent that Sen. Specter does not deserve reelection.” Anything could happen between now and Election Day, but there’s plenty of reason to be optimistic that Republicans can regain Specter’s seat—and do it by putting principle over (faux) pragmatism.
No wonder the guys at New Majority haven’t mentioned Toomey in a while…
Following up on my first and second posts about Sarah Palin’s departure from the Alaska governorship, there’s one remaining element to be considered: the “quitter factor.” Is she abandoning her obligation to her state by not completing the term of office she was elected to?
In theory, you could say so, but in practice, Alaska is still getting the administration they voted for—incoming governor Sean Parnell seems to share Palin’s views and priorities. Palin argues that stepping down is best for her state, as doing so will spare Alaska the financial strain of further ethics woes (these frivolous charges have cost Alaska nearly $2 million so far, and they’re still coming), and Parnell will be able to focus on state business rather than these investigations. Again, in practice this is all probably true. I don’t think Palin’s decision hurts Alaska at all, but it may have other unintended ramifications.
Predictably, some are questioning whether Palin can take the heat of modern American politics. Unfair though it may be (she showed admirable resilience during the 2008 campaign, and at a minimum, we know she’s going to hit the campaign trail for conservative politicians and speak out against Obama’s policies, subjecting herself to more attacks), it’s a line of argument Palin herself has invited by citing the attacks as one of her reasons for resigning. Only time will reveal her true mettle, though—if the pit bull in lipstick remains in the thick of the fight, whether campaigning for like-minded pols or especially as a presidential contender herself, it ought to put this meme to rest for good.
Perhaps most problematic is the message her departure may have telegraphed to the Left. There is a danger that they will look at this and conclude, “we managed to get a sitting governor to resign,” and feel emboldened to repeat these tactics across the country. That’s the last thing any of us should want, and even if the attacks did factor into Palin’s decision, it was a mistake to publicly attribute her resignation to them in any part. These people will pounce upon even the slightest appearance of weakness.
I would love to see Sarah Palin prove the critics wrong and to see her post-office contributions to America dwarf anything she could have done as governor of Alaska. But right now, the best I can say is that time will tell.
A few days have passed since Sarah Palin announced she’s leaving the governorship, more pundits have thrown in their two cents: Mark Steyn seems to think she’s really out of politics for good, while Victor Davis Hanson advances the 2016 theory. I’d like to expand upon my initial reaction with a closer look at each theory, as well as the pros and cons of what she’s done so far.
Theory: Preemptive damage control for a new, major scandal
We can probably dismiss this one without much concern. The FBI has said they have “no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity,” and really—what more can be said that hasn’t already been said about her? I mean, once we’ve crossed the “you didn’t give birth to your own son” threshold…
Theory: She’s leaving politics behind for a permanent return to private life
Steyn floats this theory on the basis that Palin entered public life in a very different, less cutthroat political culture than the one she found at the national level:
In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people. You’re a mayor or a state senator or even the governor, but you lead a normal life. The local media are tough on you, but they know you, they live where you live, they’re tough on the real you, not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics who’d never heard of you a week earlier and media grandees supposedly on your own side who pronounce you a “cancer.”
Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it’ll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You’ve got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who’s given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.
It’s a possibility we certainly can’t dismiss—she’s got a family to care for, and heaven knows she’s been put through hell by the Left—but then how do you account for the fact that her explanation (which, sorry, had a lot of room for improvement) is chock-full of references to taking her fight in new directions and such? If you believe she’s permanently retiring, then you also have to believe she’s misleading a whole bunch of people whom she knows adore her, and will be crushed to see her disappear.
I’ll have to see more before I accept that. Sarah Palin’s planning something. But what?
Theory: She is not interested in the presidency, but believes she can better fight for the country in some other, as-yet unspecified way
Possible, but unless she’s got something very specific in mind, most of the usual non-office routes she could take (book deals, speaking tours, etc.) seem to me a waste of her star power if that’s the extent of her long-term plans. That sort of thing is good for building goodwill and keeping your image out there, but honestly, I don’t know if its audience would include more than a handful of new converts. In other words, they can be means to an end, but if Palin intends them as the end, I’m afraid her efforts will yield less than she hopes. A Senate run? Maybe, but I don’t think an early leave for one Alaska office is exactly the best foundation for seeking another one…
Whatever she has in mind, I think it’s vital that she reveals it sooner rather than later. If she wants to be a Republican or conservative leader, she can’t leave her followers in the dark as to her intentions. They can’t be left waiting in the wings for a cause that’s never going to materialize, and if they’ll need to look elsewhere for leadership, they need to know.
Theory: She plans to run for president
I still think this is the most likely. But when? Hanson says:
In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She’s not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight years of travel and reflection that she’s a charismatic Margaret Thatcher-type heavyweight.
I don’t think so. Getting a head start on the next race is one thing, but eight years is overkill—she can still do a lot towards building her credentials and her ally list in three and a half. Hanson’s comments do highlight the fact that she’ll have ample opportunities even if the upcoming election doesn’t pan out. But I think that the stars are aligning for 2012, if she wants it. The Right is clamoring for a true leader to stand up to Obama’s disastrous agenda, and none of the other would-be names in the field are distinguishing themselves (though, for reasons I may elaborate on in a later post, I think Mike Huckabee could be surprisingly formidable). With the numbers looking worse still for Obamanomics, a charismatic, passionate voice that can unite the opposition and articulate conservative alternatives is The One’s worst nightmare. Sarah Palin has a gift for communication that could give her just the edge she needs to take him down.
Yes, she’ll need to work on her policy expertise in areas in which she’s had less experience, chiefly foreign affairs and the judiciary. But that’s certainly doable, as is surrounding herself with high-caliber advisors. She’ll have to be careful who she listens to—just because some conservatives have constructive criticism to offer doesn’t mean they have sinister ulterior motives (the last thing we need is a repeat of the Fredhead fiasco). And again, she’s got to make her intentions clear soon. Forget the conventional wisdom—if you’re running for president, say so.
There’s a lot we don’t know, and it’s too early to crown her the new queen of the conservative movement. But if Sarah Palin’s willing to put in the effort, Barack Obama’s reign of error could come crashing down sooner than he thinks.
Sarah Palin just shocked everyone by announcing that she is stepping down as governor of Alaska at the end of the month, before her first term in office is even up. From what I can tell between her official statement and her brother’s remarks to Fox News, she’s citing the following reasons:
– her administration has largely accomplished in 2 years what they promised to do in 4
– fighting the onslaught of false & frivolous ethics complaints has become so costly to Alaskan taxpayers and consumed so much of her and her staff’s time that state business has inevitably gotten the short end of the stick
– she doesn’t feel she can do any good as a lame-duck governor, and new Governor Scott Parnell will ultimately be better for the state
– she feels she can best serve the country by fighting for conservative causes and individuals in as-yet unspecified ways
We’ll have to wait to see what she does post-office to know for sure, but it smells to me like Sarah Palin is running for President of the United States.
Jim Geraghty says her career is good as dead, and Morrissey & Co. are not amused, while Bill Kristol thinks stepping down could be shrewd. I more or less agree with Kristol’s high-risk/high-reward assessment. She’s risking criticisms that she can’t take the heat of the opposition and that she’s abandoning Alaska to her own ambition (between now and November 2010 is long for a “lame duck” period), both charges that could have been avoided by waiting out the rest of her term. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the cost of fighting the smear campaign, both to the state and to the Palin family, is tremendous. If she spends the next couple years boning up on foreign policy and genuinely fighting for conservative causes (Mitt Romney made a similar pledge, but his follow-through has been underwhelming so far), it’ll be time well spent, and she’ll be a formidable candidate come campaign season. The Democrats have surely noticed slipping support for Barack Obama’s policies, and they can’t be thrilled at the prospect of somebody with Palin’s popularity and communication skills, free from the shackles of public office, becoming a regular spokeswoman against The One.
I also want to note one thing that caught my eye: Palin’s pledge to support good candidates regardless of “what party they’re in or no party at all.” Could that be a warning that she won’t take lightly to liberalizing the Republican Party, and is willing to take her chances as an independent conservative? Maybe I’m reading too much into a mere rhetorical bone thrown to bipartisanship, but resercons should tread lightly…
If nothing else, we can thank Sarah Palin for this: she got the talking heads to shut up about Michael Jackson for the longest period yet since he died.
UPDATE: Allah thinks she’s out of luck for 2012 but is really angling for 2016. I doubt it—if she’s waiting another four years, then that would be all the more reason to finish her current term. Naturally, speculation abounds that this is preemptive damage control for an impending monster scandal (maybe Dr. Sullivan has finally cracked the Trig case!). I’m skeptical (of course the nutroots are gonna take the most disastrous possible option), but we’ll see.
UPDATE 2: Full disclosure: in retrospect, I think my early declarations that “Palin 2012 Begins Today” (sans “?”) and that there was little doubt left about her presidential plans were impulsive and premature, and I have changed this post accordingly.
Lots of conservatives (me included) got excited back when David Zucker’s An American Carol was announced. As a fierce, openly conservative film from mainstream Hollywood talent, it sparked hopes that it could bring conservative messages to segments of the population the Right doesn’t normally reach and bring about a larger conservative presence in American pop culture. Unfortunately, it didn’t do all that well commercially. I’ve seen it a couple times now, and have some thoughts on what worked, and what went wrong.
To recap for those unfamiliar, An American Carol tells the tale of a sleazy, America-hating director who has been recruited by two bumbling al-Qaeda terrorists to produce a recruitment video, but the spirits of past American heroes (plus, uh, Trace Adkins) intervene to teach him some much-needed lessons about the price of liberty. Will Michael “Malone” come to his senses in time to foil the jihadists’ latest plot?
An American Carol does a few things right. For one, the casting is absolutely superb. Kevin Farley looks just like Michael Moore, and perfectly captures the boorish, self-serving creep (albeit far more likeable than the real thing). Chriss Anglin makes a great John F. Kennedy, both looking like the president and capturing his distinctive voice without descending into parody. Kelsey Grammar’s portrayal of General George S. Patton is confident and cantankerous, and while it won’t dethrone George C. Scott’s legendary performance anytime soon, it doesn’t need to—this is a comedy, not a biopic. Jon Voight delivers an outstanding, albeit criminally brief, performance of President George Washington that’s so somber and dignified that I’d love to see Voight star in a Washington biopic. Robert Davi is strong as the jihadists’ ruthless leader, and his two bumbling underlings provide lots of laughs (“All the really good suicide bombers are gone!”) The supporting cast does fine, Bill O’Reilly has a couple amusing appearances as himself, and there’s Leslie Nielsen. If you don’t love Leslie Nielsen, there’s something wrong with you. The likeable cast keeps the movie going even through some of the weaker jokes.
There are plenty of laughs to be had—this is from the guy behind Airplane! and the Naked Gun movies, after all. Most of the best material revolves around the two Taliban twits, and my favorite part of the movie was a simply brilliant sequence involving zombies (I’ll say no more so as not to spoil it). Funny one-liners abound, and, of course, it’s just not a Zucker movie until bad things happen to children with severe medical problems. On the other hand, the idea of a musical number featuring a pack of hippies-turned-academics certainly has potential, but its execution soon becomes almost painful.
Unfortunately, the film’s effectiveness at conveying a message falls flat. Often the caricatures of left-wing fallacies such as appeasement, academic indoctrination, and anti-Americanism are so clichéd, unsympathetic and over-the-top that they come across as wooden, transparent, and sometimes even juvenile. The dialogue put in liberal mouths is often little more than left-wing bumper-sticker lines strung together, with the worst offenders being an early conversation about war between Malone and his military nephew, and a talk show where Rosie “O’Connell” pushes her crackpot theory that “radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.”
These caricatures lack the subtlety and natural flair that superior political satirists like Paul Shanklin, the Onion, and (even to some degree) the writers on the Daily Show and Colbert Report have mastered (I think this was the same problem that plagued Fox News’ short-lived Half-Hour News Hour). It’s easy to knock down a straw man, but it’s not effective—I didn’t find Malone’s conversion to patriotism convincing because I didn’t find the film’s arguments persuasive, and I doubt anyone who doesn’t already know the underlying principles and arguments would be persuaded either. And aside from entertaining, wasn’t that the point—to get the other side of the story into mainstream entertainment? Keeping that in mind, conservatives shouldn’t be discouraged by An American Carol’s lack of success. It still remains to be seen how a truly excellent, openly conservative film would fare at the box office, one that better balances silliness and substance.
An American Carol isn’t a bad movie—strong performances and classic Zucker wit make it an enjoyable 83 minutes, and conservatives will get a kick out of how mercilessly it skewers all manner of left-wing idiocy. But sadly, it fails to be significantly more than just that—a right-wing guilty pleasure.
When Pat Toomey, the conservative former head of the Club for Growth, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter for the nomination to Specter’s seat in the US Senate, the beating Specter’s poll numbers took led him to officially move to his true spiritual home, the Democrat Party. Predictably, resercons like David Frum wasted no time in accusing the supposedly-unelectable Toomey of giving total control of the Senate to the Democrats by needlessly taking out the Republican who had a decent shot at retaining the seat.
The polls, however, tell a different story. Specter’s 20-point general election lead diminished by half between the beginning and the end of May, and the latest polls show no reason to put a fork in Toomey. Specter currently leads Toomey 50-39 (Rep. Joe Sestak’s lead on Toomey is smaller at 41-35). This would be very bad news if the election were weeks, or even a couple months, down the road, but the election is still a year away. You don’t have to be a professional pollster to have noticed that lots can change in short periods of time. For instance, a candidate’s connection to a psychotic reverend could come to light…
Bottom line: there’s no reason to consider this race over, and Toomey is no traitor to the “greater good” of the GOP. Specter made the decision to leave the party precisely because he didn’t feel loyalty to its greater good. This is the sort of man Frum thinks deserves “an honored place made in the Republican Party.” But as the polls show, the GOP very well ma reclaim that seat next year—thanks to a candidate who has principles, for a change, someone who actually believes in his party’s platform.
UPDATE: As Ed Morrissey points out, Toomey is hardly some kind of unserious also-ran:
Toomey didn’t just come out of nowhere. He won an election to Congress in a district best described as moderate, replacing a retiring Democratic incumbent and beating another popular Democrat by ten points. He won re-election twice afterwards, until he kept his promise to limit himself to three terms in the House. The notion that Toomey would only appeal to the Republican base has no evidence, other than the fears among Specter apologists.
UPDATE: Chalk one up for the good guys—Mr. Latham has his job back!
Newsbusters and Fox News have the scoop (video from this morning’s Fox & Friends interview here) on Tim Latham, a high school social studies teacher who contends he’s been let go from his job merely for being a conservative. Latham’s crimes:
– Not showing Barack Obama’s inauguration in class—never mind that he never has, and says he never would, shown video of any presidential inauguration. Good to know that kneeling before Zod is now part of the job description.
– Having an overly-patriotic website, which states his goal to get students “to love your country, live the experiences of those who came before — to truly love the American way of life,” links to hotbeds of right-wing extremism like…uh, West Point and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and stories about terrorist attacks (which he was forced to remove). Weird…it’s as if he thinks he’s teaching American kids or something…
– Putting a McCain-Palin bumper sticker on his car. Doesn’t he realize that Sarah Palin is Potemkin symbolism?
His students love him and have gone to bat for him, and even the liberal kids insist he never forced his views on them. School officials have reportedly admitted that they violated union procedures for firing teachers, and his colleagues have berated him for supporting “that woman” (hmm, that phrase sounds familiar…). There’s nothing wrong with trying to instill honest patriotism in students—in fact, that’s precisely what a social studies teacher should do.
As far as I can tell, this is straight-up ideological persecution. Public schools around the country are firmly in the grip of the Left—left-wing indoctrination and persecution are commonplace, and often take forms far more sinister than “to love your country.”
Make no mistake, this stuff goes on at our very own Fond du Lac High School, too. Four of my five social studies teachers were very good and very fair, but one was a rabid antiwar, anti-Scott McCallum propagandists. My AP English teacher had a reputation as a bitter left-wing fanatic, whose rants about Vietnam, George Bush, religion, and more would leave our class days behind schedule. I know of a science teacher who told his students not to trust Fox News, and of another English teacher who railed against Bush (the same teacher who complained to school administration that I once uttered the phrase “God Bless America” on the intercom—which the principal later lied about).
And even when teachers aren’t pushing an agenda, textbooks often offer a flawed, biased view of American history and politics. Some examples:
American Civics, Constitution Edition (1987) accepts the fatuous concept of the living Constitution as a given, characterizes the “Necessary & Proper” clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as “allow[ing] Congress to take many actions not named in the Constitution,” never mentioning the substantial dispute over its nature early in our history, warns that “Many of [the problems in America’s schools] are caused by lack of money,” and makes no mention of the Federalist Papers.
America’s History, Fourth Edition (2000, Bedford/St. Martin’s) presents then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan as a mild, market-based solution to healthcare reform (no), wildly mischaracterizes Sen. Joe McCarthy as a lying demagogue (no), dismisses Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative as unrealistic (no), and outrageously asserts that Anita Hill’s accusations against Clarence Thomas were ignored only because there weren’t enough women in the Senate (no).
The American Pageant, Twelfth Edition (2001), the history book used in Fond du Lac High School’s AP US History courses during the 05/06 school year, also engages in vicious McCarthy revisionism, going so far as to impugn McCarthy’s military record as “trumped up,” characterizes one of Osama bin Laden’s grievances as America’s “support for Israel’s hostility to Palestinian nationalism,” adds a note into the text of the Second Amendment (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms [i.e., for military purposes] shall not be infringed”), and downplays the religiosity of the Framers, leaving their beliefs on religion’s societal importance unmentioned.
In Vindicating Lincoln, Hillsdale College Political Science Professor Thomas Krannawitter writes:
I recently led a civic education workshop for middle and high school teachers during which I presented the different views of the Framers of the Constitution offered by Abraham Lincoln [who said the Framers believed slavery to be evil and wanted to end it] and Chief Justice Roger Taney [who said they never meant for the Declaration of Independence to include blacks, whom they saw as little more than property…] After analyzing numerous original source documents from Lincoln, Taney, and the Founders, one of the teachers raised his hand in exasperation, explaining that for twenty-five years he had been teaching American government, and all along he had unknowingly been teaching Taney’s view of the Founding, not Lincoln’s. He went on to explain that he had not taught Lincoln’s view because he had never encountered it, that all the American history and government textbooks simply parroted Taney’s groundless description of the Founders, and that he felt cheated by his own (mis)education.
There is some evidence that leftist thinking is even embedded into the training of modern teachers—the 1993 edition of School & Society, a textbook for teacher education, paints a grim picture of a country in which the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer (one can just imagine what other goodies lie inside).
The Left’s stranglehold on education is going almost completely unchallenged, which is one of the Right’s greatest failings, and nothing less than a dereliction of duty by federal, state, and local Republican parties. No attempt to truly advance conservative ideas or repair the damage the Left has done to this country will be complete without a full-blown offensive to restore integrity, accuracy, and fair-mindedness to the schools. Millions of children are being taught to accept at face value false premises about our form of government, historical falsehoods presented as fact, a laundry list of supposed sins tarnishing the image of their country, and other core tenets of liberalism. As documented by David Limbaugh and Jay Sekulow & Keith Fournier, bigotry towards students’ mild, benign religious expression is commonplace.
Morally, this situation is intolerable, and demands a vigorous opposition. But conservatives also need to realize that any effort to make the conservative case in the media or during campaigns will be at a major disadvantage as long as major portions of its audience are receiving that message through the prism of their miseducation. Converts to the Right will be won from time to time, but many more will unwittingly adopt and internalize tenets of the Left through their taxpayer-funded miseducation.
Conservatives need to watch their school districts with a fine toothed comb. Pay attention to what your kids encounter. Follow the school board meetings, whether in person or on local public access television. Go to your schools’ libraries, and see what books are and aren’t there, and in what proportion (find out if your district keeps their libraries’ catalogs computerized). Examine the textbooks used in class every chance you get (such as when new ones are up for adoption—the FdL School District has announced that community members can review a group of new books, including 5 social studies texts, until June 22). Whenever cause for concern arises, pursue it, offer your support to those involved, demand answers from the officials, and raise awareness however you can—newspaper letters, emails, townhall meetings, you name it. Pay attention to what kids are saying on RateMyTeachers.com, and don’t be afraid to contribute.
In a future post, I will create a list of key falsehoods and omissions in class curriculums, and other school practices, that parents, students, and other concerned citizens should watch out for.
Granted, taking a stand against liberal indoctrination is a guaranteed way to incur the wrath of the establishment, demonized as obsessed, petty, hateful, on a vendetta to destroy education itself, with no consideration “for the children.” It takes courage and fortitude to withstand one of the Left’s trademark intimidation campaigns. It’s a lot to ask of any individual, which is why organizations like local GOPs ought to take the lead. We need parties brave enough to risk the invective and take up this fight and citizens who will urge their parties to take action. If local Republican establishments cannot be spurred to action, we need concerned citizens willing to make this stand on their own. Making enemies is never easy, but those who want to heal this country, advance conservatism, or restore the power and credibility of the Republican Party have no choice.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the kind of person you don’t want on the Supreme Court. Her infamous (and recurrent) “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” is a clear sign that she sees issues and situations through a racial, identity-politics prism. Her comment that the US Court of Appeals “is where policy is made” speaks for itself. Apologists have tried to explain these statements away as if they were detached, self-evident observations about the way things are, not the way she wants them to be. But that won’t do—we already have examples of both ideas polluting her judicial analysis.
She opposes capital punishment on the grounds that it “is associated with evident racism in our society” and once claimed that, after reviewing “the current literature of the past two years, no publications have been found that challenge the evidence and the rationale presented in opposition to the death penalty.” She has complained that her 1998 appellate confirmation was delayed due to racism: “I was dealt with on the basis of stereotypes . . . and it was painful . . . and not based on my record…I got a label because I was Hispanic and a woman and [therefore] I had to be liberal.” However, her racial sensitivity doesn’t extend to white and Hispanic firefighters denied promotions on the basis of their race. She looks at the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” and somehow concludes that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” She acknowledges that her judicial analysis is influenced in part by “foreign law and the international community.”
In America’s system of checks and balances, the purpose of the judicial branch is “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws,” as Hamilton writes in Federalist 78. He goes on to write that judges are to have an “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals.” The duty of a judge is to discern the plain meaning and original intent of the law. Opinions regarding what the law should be—preferences for which policies to adopt and which to repeal—are for the elected representatives of the people to debate and enact. Why would we even dream of giving policymaking power to unelected magistrates with lifetime offices?
Anyone familiar with the Framers’ thinking, from Federalist 10 to Washington’s Farewell Address, can attest to their belief in the importance of national unity and pursuing the common interest, and in the dangers of factional division along regional, ethnic, cultural, or religious lines. The idea that it’s even legitimate, much less desirable, for a judge to view legal matters through any sort of racial or identity-politics prism would have been utterly alien to them. The law is what it is, regardless of its observer, and the mark of a great judge is the ability to look beyond one’s personal baggage and prejudices to seek the truth.
Sonia Sotomayor fails this test, and her nomination doesn’t speak well of the judicial philosophy of the president who nominated her (especially considering that Obama once taught constitutional law). As a matter of principle, her nomination ought to be opposed—but thanks to the Republican moderation mentality, that’s another can of worms. The standard reaction to Sotomayor’s known failings by Republicans making the cable news rounds seems to be, “it’s troubling, but let’s see what she has to say during the hearings.” Translation: “Yeah, we know it looks bad, but we don’t want to make any commitments because we’re scared that we might alienate the Hispanic vote further” (because pandering to liberal Hispanics worked out so well last year).
This is absurd. Cowardly failure to draw clear distinctions between themselves and the Democrats got Republicans into this mess, and it’s not going to get them out of it. The idea that whatever Sotomayor says during her job interview should carry more weight than her record is ridiculous. And I don’t understand the idea that an opposition to this Supreme Court nominee will somehow deplete the “ammo” Republicans will need to battle the next nominee, or the idea that this battle is less important, since she’s just filling a seat that was occupied by another liberal anyway, and fighting isn’t ultimately going to keep her off the court.
Regardless of whether or not Sotomayor becomes a Justice, Republicans need to loudly oppose her nomination, for two reasons. First, the base cannot be expected to keep fighting for Republicans if Republicans cannot be expected to fight for them. Second, a fight over Sotomayor’s failings is an opportunity to bring attention to the underlying constitutional issues and principles at stake, which you cannot expect unconvinced Americans to adopt if you only mention them in passing during campaign season. We always hear about the need to have a “national discussion” over this or that issue. Well, here’s your chance. Discuss.
Conservative Standards 