Sorry, But Conservatism’s Still Not Dead

Calvin Freiburger campaigns, conservatism, David Frum, David Horowitz, NY-23, Republican Party, resercons

Yesterday Republicans took the governor’s mansions of Virginia & New Jersey, and Maine voted for true marriage.  David Horowitz is hailing Virginia’s ideological turnaround in particular as bad news for Barack Obama:

The 62-38 swing by 8:30PM EST  is a thirty point electoral swing since last November. And in a state whose northern heavily populated districts front on the White House lawn and whose news is national news. It’s early; New Jersey isn’t in. But the significance of this landslide cannot be understated. An electorally decisive part of the electorate who voted for Obama last November voted against him in Virginia today.

Which means: Obamacare is dead. For now.

Postscript: New Jersey, when you consider that Obama won the state by 15 points is also a landslide shift (20 points) — mainly among independents. By not governing as a centrist Obama has forfeited his margin of victory and doomed his health care reform. On CNN Carville said: If he doesn’t pass health care, the Democrats are going to get “slaughtered” because they will have shown that they can’t govern — they can’t get things done.

The Democrats’ only major victory is New York 23, where GOP bosses sunk gobs of money into a left-wing Republican, who was then trounced by the conservative third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman lost to Democrat Bill Owens, leading the usual suspects to blast the conservatives who rallied behind Hoffman.

Hoffman might not have been a dream candidate, but given how liberal (not to mention stupid and dishonest) the official GOP choice was, you can’t blame anyone for supporting him.  A four-point loss isn’t bad at all for somebody without experience as a candidate or a lawmaker; imagine how well he could have done if he had the support he should have had from the Republican Party all along (or if, at the very least, they hadn’t been actively working against him).

And besides, just because David Frum has decided to put politics over principle doesn’t give him the right to demand that the rest of us do the same.  The Republican Party’s self-preservation and expansion of power is not an end to itself—it’s a vehicle for advancing certain principles, and only has worth to the extent that it reflects or advances those principles.

In Defense of Hillsdale

Calvin Freiburger education, FdL Reporter, Hillsdale College, letters, me, moonbats

As usual, there are a handful of criticisms of my Reporter editorial about free speech, most of them not worth addressing—the usual assortment of illogic & dishonesty (FDL54935—one of the liars referenced in my editorial—is a conservative?  Yeah, right).  One, however, warrants a response, as this isn’t the first time it’s reared its ugly head, and it won’t be the last:

DotingDad: “I wonder: when does he have time to do his schoolwork, since he is constantly writing these long-winded letters to the editor? Maybe Hillsdale is just about right-wing indoctrination, and as long as you subscribe to that, you’ll pass all your courses.”

Yes, Hillsdale College is a conservative-leaning school, but it’s also an honest one.  Its mission is to provide students with a solid grounding in the foundations of Western civilization—Greco-Roman philosophy, Judeo-Christian morality, the political ideas of the English Enlightenment and the American Founding, and classical free-market economics.  To be sure, genuine study of these things generally leads to ideas more in line with American conservatism than with progressivism.  However, that’s a sign not of how biased Hillsdale is, but of what a radical departure progressivism was from pre-20th-century thought, as well as how factually inaccurate much of mainstream education is.

Most public schools are presented as impartial institutions with no aim beyond offering students a well-rounded knowledge base and preparing them for adulthood.  Ideology is disseminated—sometimes overtly, sometimes by stealth—to an unsuspecting, often-apolitical audience, their parents forced to support the school with their tax dollars, the teachers state-approved authority figures in the lives of impressionable minors.

Hillsdale, however, is honest about its mission.  The school’s emphasis on classical thought (which, as anybody actually familiar with the professors and the classes can guarantee, is a far cry from RNC propaganda) is out in the open; anybody considering Hillsdale is free to apply or not with full knowledge of its mission.

At most colleges, you can barely swing a dead cat without hitting some washed-up Marxist or an ex-Black Panther, and odds are he’d have tenure.  K-12 public education has more than a little propagandizing of its own to answer for, too.  Rest assured, if DotingDad is really that concerned about education, he’s barking up the wrong tree.

Freedom of Speech

Calvin Freiburger Constitution, FdL Reporter, letters, speech

My latest Reporter editorial:

*          *          *

I’m glad to see Michael Mentzer take a stand against the lies and venom that have come to dominate online forums—civil discussion is almost always an exercise in futility, and the only education you’ll receive is a crash course in human nature’s dark side.  It’s genuinely disheartening to discover what our neighbors are capable of with a digital secret identity.

However, I believe important distinctions must be made, and lines drawn, in how we respond.

The Fond du Lac Reporter absolutely has the right to insist its users attach full names to whatever they say on their forums, as well as to delete whatever comments and ban whichever users they think have crossed the line.  That’s not tyranny; it’s a private institution’s right to set the terms under which one may use its services.  Like the Trace Adkins song says: “Son, the First Amendment protects you from the government—not from me.”

But when government enters the picture, things change.  Mr. Mentzer expresses hope for new laws punishing “online users who lie with malice, falsify and distort information for their own ends, and intimidate with the intention of limiting or denying freedom of speech to others,” with violators “identified, tracked down, charged, fined or jailed.”

Libel is already punishable, if a demonstrably-false statement can be shown to have damaged the victim in some way.  But not all lies are created equal—in response to my last editorial, one of fdlreporter.com’s anonymous commenters accused me of plagiarism.  Prior to that, another cited “sources” to claim I’m “barely making it through community college.”  They’re bald-faced lies (just look up Hillsdale College sometime), but have I been damaged?  Of course not; I’m not about to lose sleep over some loser with an abundance of bandwidth and free time. (“Sources” tell me my fan is really Roman Polanski.  See how easy it is?)

The point is, a lie’s credibility matters to its potential impact—and anonymous, poorly-spelled claims made via communication technology tailor-made for the lazy just won’t cut it.  In the event that such attacks do manage to harm someone, I’m confident the proper authorities will be able to unmask the culprit.

As for “falsify[ing] and distort[ing] information for their own ends,” Mr. Mentzer has (sadly) just described much of American politics.  We have entire industries—publications, websites, advocacy groups—dedicated to spreading “the truth,” and rarely is there a consensus on what that truth is. So how could this possibly be enforced, without some government decree or administrative body established to conclude just what the “official” facts are on any given topic?  I cannot believe we would want to start down that road.

We encounter similar problems with intimidation.  Like libel, intimidation by threat of violence is already actionable, and short of that, clamping down on “intimidating” speech—and giving Uncle Sam the leeway to decide what’s “intimidating”—is another scary road that would create more problems than it would solve.

The federal and state Constitutions grant the people broad freedom of speech because our forefathers knew free and open communication was an essential bulwark against tyranny.  Whenever people are given freedom, some will abuse it, but as they say, bad speech is best countered by good speech, not government force.

Treat with caution any temptation to “fix” liberty’s imperfections, for as history shows, such endeavors always bring about more than we bargain for.  For all the beauty and wisdom our First Amendment has made possible throughout history, the occasional blemish is a price I’ll gladly pay.

Ronald Reagan: “Let Them Go Their Way”

Calvin Freiburger campaigns, conservatism, Newt Gingrich, NY-23, Republican Party, resercons, Ronald Reagan

Scarcely a day goes by that some “respectable” Republican doesn’t wave his finger in disapproval at those of us who believe in holding Republicans to some basic standard of principle, lecturing us about how we don’t really understand the nature of politics.  Michelle Malkin notes that Newt Gingrich is the latest finger-waver, invoking none other than Ronald Reagan in defending his support for the lying, cowardly, leftist Republican Dede Scozzaflava in New York.  Michelle offers a response from none other than Reagan himself:

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

A Special Announcement

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, David Horowitz, David Swindle, me, NewsReal

Ladies & gentlemen, I’m thrilled to announce that I’m embarking on a new chapter in my career as a conservative pundit: today I have joined the great team of bloggers at David Horowitz’s NewsReal!  I’ll still be blogging here at CFO about the usual mayhem & merriment, but my contributions to NewsReal will focus on the goings-on in the world of cable news.

I’d like to express my most heartfelt gratitude to David Swindle, David Horowitz, and everyone else at NewsReal for this tremendous opportunity; rest assured I won’t let you down.

My friends, sit down, strap yourselves in, and enjoy the ride.

Little Green Freakshow

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, Charles Johnson, dishonesty, extremism, race, resercons, Rush Limbaugh

There’s a special place in hell waiting for Charles Johnson, regardless of whether or not he believes it’s really there.

Once one of the heavy hitters of the blogosphere (he helped in blowing the lid off Rathergate and founding Pajamas Media), in the past couple years Johnson has shifted the focus of Little Green Footballs to rooting out any perceived extremists (real & imagined alike) from the right-of-center, a venture that has its place (I’ve made clear my opposition to Birthers, Paultergeists, and other genuine loons & bigots), but for Johnson that crusade has morphed into something else entirely: a smear campaign based on specious (if any) evidence against…well, darn near every conservative blogger & commentator who isn’t him.

Ever expressed doubt as to man’s contribution to global warming?  Evolution?  You’re an extremist who has to be destroyed.  Host a blog, but don’t police the comment threads to Johnson’s exacting, jackbooted standards?  You obviously endorse every word there, then.  Is there an out-of-context or unsourced quote attributed to you floating around the Internet?  Good enough for Chuck!  Burn the witches!

Mind you, I hate Ron Paul every bit as much as the next sensible conservative, but that doesn’t justify dishonest attacks on him.  Likewise, I happen to believe in evolution (yes, I’ve changed my position since reading Godless, thanks in part to the excellent work of Dr. Francis Collins), but is creationism in public schools really a dire threat to the Union?  Please.

It was only natural that Johnson would jump on the bandwagon to keep Rush Limbaugh out of the NFL, and his conduct in this matter perfectly illustrates the (empty) content of his character.  Ace picked up on Johnson’s sleazy peddling of a fraudulent list of racist Rush quotes, and his utter indifference to their veracity.  Now the Media Research Center has released a report on the smear campaign, in which they mention Johnson as one of the perpetrators.  Johnson’s reaction?  Does he feel a shred of professional or personal obligation to honesty?  Nope: “I’ve finally made it. I’m an “offender” in this Rush Limbaugh idolizing article at the far right Media Research Center. My life is complete.”

That and a list of “racist and race-baiting quotes from Rush Limbaugh that are sourced and verified”:

“Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.”

If Johnson or Media Matters would care to explain how speculation about the motives behind inconsistent stances on Iraq & Darfur (right or wrong) constitutes racism, I’d love to hear it.  Speaking bluntly about racial components to political issues is not “race-baiting.”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

Rather than a “look at those violent blacks on the field!” comment that Johnson would like you to believe this is, it comes from a larger discussion on class & maturity in NFL culture—in which he compliments San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson and Philadelphia Colts wide receiver Marvin Harrison as “the two most classy individuals playing in the National Football League today, in skill positions.”  As clicking on their names reveals, a little context can be a dangerous thing.

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

I can’t find context for this one (maybe Rush was trying to prod lefty sensibilities), but okay, it sure doesn’t sound good.  Absent a good contextual basis, he should apologize.  But is Rush Limbaugh a racist?  Ask his producer.

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

Rush apparently said this early in his radio career, to an unintelligible black caller.  Crude?  Insensitive?  Yes, but Rush openly regrets it, and an ill-considered quip uttered in frustration is hardly worth crucifying the guy over.

“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

This is commentary on media sensibilities regarding race, not race baiting.  Next.

“Obama’s America: white kids getting beat up on school buses. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama’s America, white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering, ‘Yeah! Right on! Right on!’”

*sigh* Johnson has already been called out for this faux controversy.

Since I began writing this post, Johnson has updated his post with the Snopes analysis of the “disputed” (that’s LGF-speak for what the rest of us call “phony”) Rush quotes—y’know, the only ones that show any actual racism.  He offers them without commentary, expresses no regret for his role in peddling them, and probably didn’t add them until it occurred to him that they might help him save face.  To Charles Johnson, blogging means never having to say you’re sorry.

Why the obsession with smearing people?  Why the abandonment of integrity?  Who knows—maybe his departure from Pajamas Media left him with a chip on his shoulder.  Maybe he’s overcompensating for similar charges that have been leveled against him in the past.  Whatever the cause, Little Green Footballs is no longer worthy of its once-revered place in the blogosphere, and is now nothing more than a Little Green Freakshow.

ObamaCare: ‘Cuz It Worked So Well Before

Calvin Freiburger healthcare

Question: What do Washington State, Hawaii, Tennessee, Oregon, Maine, South Dakota, Kentucky, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, California, and Massachusetts all have in common?

Answer: In all these states, liberal government-focused healthcare ideas have all been tried—and they’ve failed, as Karl explains in this essential post at Hot Air’s Greenroom.  Check it out, and spread the word.

Goliath Has Nothing to Fear from These Davids

Calvin Freiburger Bill O'Reilly, conservatism, David Brooks, David Frum, extremism, Glenn Beck, John McCain, liberalism, Republican Party, resercons, strategy, stupidity

David Frum is promoting David Brooks’ latest column, in which Brooks says:

Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.

This is delusional on several fronts. Brooks’ claim that the GOP is at the mercy of talk radio is totally undercut by his own column’s earlier observation about John McCain’s primary success, despite the longstanding bad blood between McCain and the pundits. But that’s not to say his other claim, that the talkers have no sway with the actual voters, is much better — just ask Harriet Miers, the United Arab Emirates, or the Republicans who wanted to ram amnesty through Congress (all issues talk radio sounded the alarm on) how far they got.

It’s interesting that Brooks attributes the GOP’s decline to the rise of Glenn Beck (who didn’t really hit it big until after Obama’s victory), Sean Hannity (who was a superstar well before any discernible GOP decline, and was doing his usual routine during Republicans’ Congressional gains in 2002 and both of George W. Bush’s victories in 2000 & 2004), and Bill O’Reilly (an independent with hawkish defense and law-&-order sentiments, but also a global-warming believer who spends half his time demonizing oil companies and treating any politician who might give him an interview with kid gloves), and not to what these supposedly-kowtowing Republicans actually did:

Bush and the Republicans spent massively, especially in Bush’s first term. We opposed that, mightily. The president’s most cherished initiative, probably, was the Faith-Based Initiative. We opposed that. Then there was his education policy: No Child Left Behind. We opposed that (mainly on grounds that it wrongly expanded the federal role). He had his new federal entitlement: a prescription-drug benefit. We of course opposed that. He imposed steel tariffs—for a season—which we opposed. He signed the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance—which we opposed. He established a new cabinet department, the Department of Homeland Security. We opposed that. He defended race preferences in the University of Michigan Law School case; we were staunchly on the other side. He of course proposed a sweeping new immigration law, which included what amounted to amnesty. We were four-square against that.

I am talking about some things that were very dear to Bush’s heart, and central to his efforts—and self-image, as a leader. NR, the conservative arbiter, opposed those things. The Republican party, by and large, supported them—with one glaring exception: the immigration push.

He might also do well to consider that McCain’s failed presidential bid was hardly in the mold of a Limbaugh broadcast, or, if he’s really feeling intellectually curious, he could ask himself what effect a primary field divided among multiple candidates with partial claims to certain aspects of conservatism (Romney on economics, Huckabee on social issues, Giuliani on terrorism, etc.) might have had.

David Brooks is dead wrong, but we shouldn’t be surprised that David Frum is enamored — these days Frum dreams of a new conservatism that looks suspiciously like liberalism, and spends more time hyperventilating about TV personalities’ occasional missteps than extremists in the White House.

(Cross-posted at The HF Blog.)