Next conservatism outbreak is...Portugal?

Meanwhile in Portugal...

Conservatism ascending, Italian style

Italy has come a long way since WWII. Especially under current prime minister Georgia Meloni. The recent referendum proves it.

Starting 2023 with some highbrow conservatism

Starting 2023 with some wise words from a wise man, F. A. Hayek:

But it's just a poll(s)

As Rush Limbaugh used to say, polls don't matter except for the voting on election day (if you consider that a poll).  That said, things look good for conservatism now. Yet there are still so many ways this can go south.  I think the most dangerous possibility is the GOP winning big in the 2022 midterms and failing to deliver on their promises.  The second biggest dangerous possibility: the GOP delivering on those promises and Biden getting the credit in the 2024 presidential election.  To say the future is conservative is wishful thinking; it's only true if every conservative works at it, every day.

The truth about conservatism

I'm glad to see the re-emergence of AlfonZo Rachel (at least he has been less prominent for me in recent years).  Here he joins Bill Whittle, I believe as a regular guest now, to discuss what conservatism really means. Both men make some great points here.

Saturday Learning Series - Mark Steyn

Conservatism and the Facts of Life.

Saturday Learning Series - on Russell Kirk

"In Russell Kirk, Bradley J. Birzer investigates the life and work of the man known as the founder of postwar conservatism in America."

Saturday Learning Series - History of the Conservative Movement, William F. Buckley, Jr.

History of the Conservative Movement: Politics in America - William F. Buckley, Jr. an interview.

College students describing conservatism.

This video provides a dramatic contrast - based on misunderstanding, with this other, more enlightening video:

Cool counter-culturalism: Conservatism

I like this video. Really.

Two views on the state of the GOP & conservatism

There's some good discussion from Unapologetic Prophet in the comments on my post over at Left Coast Rebel.  While we disagree (less than he probably imagines), it has been an engaging discussion that hopefully will continue.

A note of caution for conservative voters

Still a big tent or just a bunch of smaller ones?

Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself with this, given that the 2016 election is a long way away. But I think the logic and reason behind this post also applies to the 2014 mid-term elections. Some Tea Party candidates beat incumbents, some didn't. The notion of supporting the better choice, albeit a less than ideal choice in many cases, has merit.

The Big Tent that Ronald Reagan claimed the GOP possessed or should possess, is something conservative voters need to keep in mind. While I'm quite happy to dismiss the MSM meme that there is a civil war within the Republican Party - Establishment vs. Tea Party vs. Libertarians (many of whom do not support the GOP) - there is a cautionary note housed within it.

Should Ted Cruz win the GOP nomination, it would benefit moderate and establishment Republicans to support him over Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. The same can be said of non-supporters of Rand Paul. But the same is also likely true if Mitt Romney were the candidate. Many die hard libertarians and conservatives could not hold their noses and vote for Mitt Romney, even though he would be a far better choice than Hillary Clinton would be.

Withholding your vote isn't akin to a civil war within the conservative movement, but it does seem short-sighted. Holding out for the perfect candidate is folly, because no such candidate exists, and never has. Allowing socialism to prevail over weak conservatism or libertarianism or Tea Party conservatism, or moderation even, is a poison pill.

Mark 3:25 -- "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand".

Or in this case, a big tent.  Just saying.

Ebola vs. Conservatism

Ebola is an enemy of conservatism. It's a deadly disease, it's spreading in Africa and there is more than one case in the United States.  To date the current outbreak has killed several hundred people in Africa. But it's not going to become an epidemic - at least in the Western world.  Africa could be another story. In fact that should be the story, here without proper intervention, thousands more could die.

Influenza by comparison, kills hundreds of thousands of people every year.  But Ebola is a virus that lends itself to sensationalism in journalism.  That's because the symptoms and relatively quick and inevitable death is so gruesome. 

Refining the small government movement

The best approach: Defend aggressively, advance slowly.

Back in 2011, I commented on a Hot Air article about the Conservative party in Canada and their chances of winning elections but the focus of my comment was more about how Canadian conservatives are not less conservative than those in America, we are simply faced with a different reality.  But it's one that provides a lesson on how to move America back to the right, and in retrospect, one that requires a little additional nuance to it. As I wrote in response to Ed Morrissey's point about Canadian conservatives being less so than our American counterparts;

The conservative party of Canada is far less of a center-left party than you suggest. While it is not currently conservative in the sense of American conservatism, it’s still a center-right party. The way it governs is affected by the country as a whole. The conservative government is hampered by decades of liberalism and socialism, so moving the country back to the right will take considerable time. The country fears conservatives as being radicals and Prime Minister Harper has had to temper his lower taxes, stronger national defense, pro-business views to suit what is still a center-left country that is slowly testing the waters with a conservative government (three elections later).

Harper’s prudence isn’t as exciting as Reagan or Thatcher in a full on charge to the right, but it’s the smartest approach in a country ready to run back to the liberals at what it regards as the slightest hint of radical conservatism...

In short - in Canada we have had to take baby steps back towards the right, not giant leaps. Our electorate needed to learn to be comfortable with the positives of conservatism and will only eschew the liberal rhetoric about us over time. Canada is now more comfortable with a conservative government than it was in 2011. The same logic holds true in the United States. As I've written about many times, Democrats and their progressive ilk have successfully pushed the U.S. to the left over the course of decades by moving the ball slowly, while occasionally taking advantage of a crisis to move the ball a lot more all at once. That's because they know, as Rush Limbaugh has often pointed out, that if they were up front about their true intentions, voters would balk en masse.

That seemed true until the current president bought into his own hype and decided that the country was fully behind him on the aggressive march to the left. You see how that's worked for him. His re-election was arguably an incumbent's advantage win. He has met with growing resistance and weaker job approval year over year. That's because Americans want change to be managed, not a headlong, ill-planned plunge into something new.

As many have argued - an aggressive refutation and loud opposition to the progressive liberal agenda is definitely necessary. But if the GOP wins in the midterms and wins the next presidency, should they engage in a headlong plunge back to the right, or manage the walk back and advancing the agenda in a smart, organized and palatable way? Obviously that's a bit of a rhetorical question.

The lessons of Canada and of Obama's leftward plunge apply. Replacing an extremely liberal agenda with a very conservative one will accomplish two things - a lurch of change that will be as mismanaged as Obamacare, and a knee-jerk reaction from voters wiling to test the waters of conservatism.

That's an unfortunate situation since the country clearly needs to be brought back to smaller government, fiscal conservatism, non-interventionist courts, American exceptionalism etc. in a big, big way. Obama has slid and/or allowed the nation to slide into a disgusting malaise of lowered respect, lowered expectations and a dead end, debt-riddled future without a future.

But with so much to accomplish, in order to govern effectively, there is a need to prioritize. That in itself will help manage the return to the right and make it a more orderly change. The best way to prioritize what needs to be done is to look at the low hanging fruit first - where there is major agreement on the right, indicates itself as a good place to start. For example, rolling back Obamacare is an easier sell on the right than pretty much any social issue or an issue of libertarian smaller military vs. conservative defense hawks.

With each issue tackled, there is a need to move cautiously and intelligently forward. A simple repeal might be something most every conservative can agree upon, but it is way to easy for the liberal media to frame as bringing America backwards. Armed with Congressional Budget Office proof, the GOP could move forward with an intelligent mix of their dozens of proposals that the Democrats and media ignored while claiming the GOP had no plan. The message - we are not returning to the status quo, we are moving forward but in a different direction than the previous president with ideas that are more cost effective, will help more people, offer more alternatives to people and be simpler to understand.

Each area will eventually snowball and it will give people a chance to adjust as it grows its own momentum. That's what Obama has been trying to do with all of the delays to Obamacare. The difference is that the president is attempting to hide the true cost, the true implications, from voters. The GOP will necessarily have to be up front about their real goals, more choice, and lowered costs. The approach of slow and steady is a necessary evil for America.

Because charging headlong never works. I know, I've posted this before, but it's still funny and apropos here.  (more below the video):

One last point - the advance slowly notion need not be equally applied in all areas. If there is a true emergency with the national debt for example, perhaps a bit of not letting the crisis go to waste becomes not only feasible, but advantageous to conservative ideals.

Chris Christie's conservatism - chicken and egg

Chris Christie looks to be becoming the Republican juggernaut candidate the left would like him to be.  The sense of his impending primary victory has become as palpable in the media as the impending Hillary Clinton presidency.  Maybe on paper that's how it looks, but as Politico points out in a discussion with Gov. Rick Perry, there will be a discussion about Christie's conservatism when the time comes.

Deconstructing Favreau

Jon Favreau, actor and former speech writer for Barack Obama, is an expert at what is wrong with the conservative movement in America, or so he thinks.  He writes an article in the Daily Beast today that deserves some type of retort.  I'm sure many people will indeed retort.  The point is that Favreau sees the supposed demise of conservatism through the lens of a liberal, and his points are therefore skewed at best.  More accurately, they are venomous and erroneous demagoguery.

 

Paragraph by paragraph, let's attempt to deconstruct Favreau's inelegant attempt to explain what he views as the rise of destructive conservatism, in the equally liberal Daily Beast.

Nine months after a decisive loss in the 2012 elections, the battle for the soul of the Republican Party—or whatever’s left of it—has begun.

I’m not talking about a battle between moderates and conservatives. The conservatives won that fight a long time ago. Our children may never believe that moderate Republicans once roamed the Earth, advocating policies that would limit carbon pollution and invest in scientific research, reform our schools and build new roads, promote national service, reduce the influence of money in politics, and require individuals who can afford health insurance to take responsibility for buying it. Soon enough, these politicians will exist only in the minds of ’90s-era pundits and Aaron Sorkin’s writing staff.

 1. The loss of the presidency was indeed decisive.  Not so the loss of a few seats in Congress or the stand still in the Senate.

 

2.  The soul of the Republican party is not under siege. Nor is there a battle for its soul. There have always been moderate Republicans, conservative Republicans and libertarian-leaning Republicans in the party.  That there is not a single, unquestioned viewpoint in the party is the one characteristic that differentiates it from the modern Democratic party.  It is not a machine, nor is it intended to be. It is open for different viewpoints.  Just because it has not been wholeheartedly embraced by some communities does not mean it is not open to them.  The GOP is still a big tent party, despite what your pals in the media would tell you Jon.

3. Moderate Republicans do indeed exist.  From Scott Brown to Susan Collins to many others, there are moderate Republicans to be found.  Too many in fact. What you are describing however as your ideal moderate Republican Jon, is in fact a Democrat. As for your description of what constitutes a 'moderate Republican', it is full of flaws;

 

     a) Carbon pollution is not a global crisis. Republicans are entirely in favor of clean air.  They also happen to believe that the air is pretty clean and spending trillions to make it better in a negligible way is a waste of time and money.

 

     b) Republicans believe in scientific research investment.  We are not idiots.  You don't go from typewriters to iPads without innovation.  We embrace research and development.  Here's the twist - they'd like it to be done privately and not by government or coerced through arcane tax regulation. Leave the money with those who earned it and in an effort to keep ahead of the competition they will do research.  They will donate to universities to do research and they will come up with new learnings and inventions through them or on their own. It has to happen.

 

     c) Republicans would love to reform schools.  They just don't want to reform it in such a way that caters to unions, special interests and puts spending ahead of learning.  They also believe that 50 states trying to manage to better education are more likely to come up with a winning solution among them than could be achieved through the dictates of an imperious central government.  Russia tried that - it didn't work.  China does it, and they still have 500 million people or more in poverty. See, they want school reform, just not the kind you are talking about.  Decades of a liberal public education system has been a disaster.  Don't come crying for more money and call it reform.

 

     d) Building new roads?  Wasn't there an $800 billion dollar stimulus for shovel ready projects a few years back? Next.

 

     e) Promote national service? Who advocates for the military more than conservatives?  Who donates more to charities Republicans or Democrats? Republicans my friend, Republicans.  Just because these things are not what you deem national service does not mean they are not.  Getting more people working for the government is not the goal of national service - at least for us.  Other than that, who are you kidding?  National service is small potatoes unless you mean it as a way to fill government agencies with 'employees' that can't find jobs because your boss has no grasp of economics and has stalled real recovery since he took office in 2009. 

 

     f) Speaking of donations - reducing the influence of money in politics is pretty hypocritical of Democrats to want.  For Republicans who pushed for it John McCain was part of the byzantine McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.  It was a mess.  Then there was a realization by the Supreme Court that restricting money on political contributions by some groups and not others was unconstitutional and pretty  obviously unfair.  Liberals bleated about how unfair it was for the country to stop being unfair.  I will explain it in simple terms for you Jon - either NO ONE can donate anything or else it is a distortion in some way.  Someone will be disenfranchised.  But clearly, treating unions differently than corporations is absurdly distorted and that wrong being righted, is indeed reform.

 

     g) Requiring individuals who can afford health insurance to take responsibility for buying it is the cause of the month isn't it Jon?   You are talking about the individual mandate and getting young people to opt into your ARRA (Obamacare) nightmare and they aren't, and that is causing funding problems for your vaunted healthcare scheme.  That mention in the first paragraphs isn't clever, it is transparently self-serving.  And there are so many things wrong with the Act itself that it would take an entire essay to enumerate and explain.  But there is something intrinsically wrong with making people buy health insurance and fining them if they don't.  There is something intrinsically wrong with a mandate that encourages companies not to exceed 50 employees for fear of being mandated into providing health care.  By no means does that mean that conservatives are against health care reform.  We are just against an ill conceived monstrosity of a piece of legislation that would have unintended consequences for decades to come. We are against waste and inefficiency and those problems being papered over with requests for more money to fix the problems.

 

Two paragraphs in and I can see this is going to take quite a bit more time to detail.  For now I will leave this as a "To be continued" post and start digging into the rest of the Favreau doctrine soon.

Love the new layout, it's gotta go.

A lesson in conservatism.

Since I changed my blog layout a couple of months ago, I've really enjoyed the new look. It needs only a bit more tweaking to get exactly where I'd like it to be.  But it's got to go.  Blogger doesn't seem to like the customization and while I have been posting less than normal of late, the traffic levels have really plummeted since the change.  I must have interfered with blogger somehow.   So I'm going to try to change it back for a while to test my hypothesis.  If I am correct, the change will amount to a failed experiment in web design.  That's not a bad thing, in fact, it's a lesson in conservatism.

Let's not panic

So there are conservatives ready to throw in the towel - in some quarters.  In order to win, the rationale goes, they need to promise more free stuff than the Democrats.  Or else, they weren't conservative enough in the election cycle.  Others have argued that it's over for conservatism.  The trending demographics - the browning of America as they've called it (not my words) - means that conservatism is on a slow downward trend.  Oh wait, that one is from liberals.  See how liberalism sneaks in on you?

There's a million prescriptions to cure the problem.  There's a million reasons to panic. Don't.  Let's not panic.  There's no need, and panic rarely ever leads to a good decision and a good outcome.

Before I get too far, let me just note that there's an important point below about John Boehner worth sticking around for.

Conservatism is CALLING. Please share.

A great 7 minute inspirational video that should help drive you out to vote.  Share it with someone you know.

It's got some Reagan, some principled notions and a lot of factual summary of the Obama presidency.

If it makes sense, it makes sense.

I stumbled onto a new blog that I'll be adding to my blogroll today.  It's titled Freedom quest of Zork (the) Hun.  And I thought my blog title was too long.  Despite the title, Zork (if I can call the author that) is a self described social libertarian.  While I don't agree with everything that I've read so far on his blog, there's a lot there that makes sense.

Reading it and agreeing with it does not make me think that I am becoming more libertarian in my beliefs.  It reminds me that modern conservatism (properly applied) or classical liberalism has much in common with libertarianism.  If it were viewed as a Venn Diagram, there would be significant overlap (intersection) but not a complete union.  But it doesn't matter if a viewpoint is forwarded by a conservative or a libertarian - if it makes sense, it makes sense.  Common sense transcends labels anyway.  

Zork makes a lot of sense, and it's worth checking out his blog.  He's a fellow Canadian (Hungarian by birth, but clearly Canadian) and not a fan of socialized medicine (for example).  He tackles issues in a logical way, something I used to do more often when I had more time to devote to longer essay type posts to this blog.

If you get a chance, head over and check out his blog - it's worth the read.