Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Conservatives, don't despair
27 views
Skip to first unread message
unknown
Nov 12, 2012, 1:25:00 PM11/12/12
to
The mood among American conservatives is now one of apocalyptic despair.
Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?
On Fox News election night, BIll O'Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the "white establishment" was now outnumbered by minorities. "The demographic are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore." And these untraditional Americans "want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it."
O'Reilly's analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country's wealth and end the American experiment forever.
You'll hear O'Reilly's view echoed wherever conservatives express themselves.
Happily, the view is wrong, and in every respect.
America is not a society divided between "makers" and "takers." Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement.
The line between "making" and "taking" is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.
President Barack Obama was not re-elected by people who want to "take." The president was re-elected by people who want to work -- and who were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the president's policies were more likely to create work than were the policies advocated by my party.
The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play.
Whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point.
Compare the United States of 2012 to the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.
In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.
It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk, and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.
Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962.
Obama has changes in mind that conservatives and Republicans will oppose. He will want to raise taxes, he will want to sustain social spending at a permanently higher level, he has in mind new regulations over health care, energy production and banking. He'll win some, he'll lose some. To the extent that his wins prove injurious, future Republican Congresses and administrations will struggle to undo them. That's politics: a contest that never ends, and in which the only certainty is the certainty of constant change.
The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion.
People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family.
The Roman Catholic Church deems despair a mortal sin. To abandon hope is to reject the reality of goodness and to forswear future action. The United States is a great and good country, and it remains great and good even when we do not get all our own way politically. The United States is a tolerant and free country, which means that there are no "tipping points" beyond which it becomes impossible to correct mistakes.
Fifty years ago, Marxism was still a live intellectual force in British universities. Marxists taught that human society must inevitably evolve into a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. The great British conservative historian Hugh Trevor-Roper scoffed at this arrogance. He said, "When radicals scream that victory is indubitably theirs, sensible conservatives knock them on the nose. It is only very feeble conservatives who take such words as true and run round crying for the last sacraments."
We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html
Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?
On Fox News election night, BIll O'Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the "white establishment" was now outnumbered by minorities. "The demographic are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore." And these untraditional Americans "want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it."
O'Reilly's analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country's wealth and end the American experiment forever.
You'll hear O'Reilly's view echoed wherever conservatives express themselves.
Happily, the view is wrong, and in every respect.
America is not a society divided between "makers" and "takers." Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement.
The line between "making" and "taking" is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.
President Barack Obama was not re-elected by people who want to "take." The president was re-elected by people who want to work -- and who were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the president's policies were more likely to create work than were the policies advocated by my party.
The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play.
Whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point.
Compare the United States of 2012 to the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.
In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.
It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk, and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.
Even if you look only at the experiences of white heterosexual men, the United States of 2012 is a freer country in almost every way than the United States of 1962.
Obama has changes in mind that conservatives and Republicans will oppose. He will want to raise taxes, he will want to sustain social spending at a permanently higher level, he has in mind new regulations over health care, energy production and banking. He'll win some, he'll lose some. To the extent that his wins prove injurious, future Republican Congresses and administrations will struggle to undo them. That's politics: a contest that never ends, and in which the only certainty is the certainty of constant change.
The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion.
People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family.
The Roman Catholic Church deems despair a mortal sin. To abandon hope is to reject the reality of goodness and to forswear future action. The United States is a great and good country, and it remains great and good even when we do not get all our own way politically. The United States is a tolerant and free country, which means that there are no "tipping points" beyond which it becomes impossible to correct mistakes.
Fifty years ago, Marxism was still a live intellectual force in British universities. Marxists taught that human society must inevitably evolve into a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. The great British conservative historian Hugh Trevor-Roper scoffed at this arrogance. He said, "When radicals scream that victory is indubitably theirs, sensible conservatives knock them on the nose. It is only very feeble conservatives who take such words as true and run round crying for the last sacraments."
We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html
la...@pivotforpower.com
Nov 12, 2012, 8:13:00 PM11/12/12
to
Mitt Romney wanted to be responsible, even though he was coming out of a millionaire's comfortable retirement. He would have donated his salary. He would have put on his green eyeshade and endeavored day and night and even weekends to turn this ship around before it hits the rocks ahead. His wife was worried that he would work himself into poor health for our country. But his message never got through primarily because it was distorted and filtered by the liberal media. They wanted Obama so they trashed Romney.
And people voted for more gifts from the government, transfers from those of us who have earned assets to those who have earned NOTHING!
So now what? We have an irresponsible child at the helm and the ship is still heading for the rocks.
Larry
Howard Brazee
Nov 13, 2012, 10:21:48 AM11/13/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:13:00 -0800 (PST), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>And people voted for more gifts from the government, transfers from those of us who have earned assets to those who have earned NOTHING!
I was surprised when I was listening to a podcast talking about how
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>And people voted for more gifts from the government, transfers from those of us who have earned assets to those who have earned NOTHING!
people react to others on the other side of the political spectrum. A
conservative couldn't understand how her sister could be a caring
person and also be a liberal - after all, liberals were all selfish!!!
My pre-conception was that conservatives were much more selfish than
liberals. After all, red states get more of the federal spending
than they pay. Conservatives are much more against any kind of
welfare for the poor. (although Republicans and Democrats both
believe in welfare for Big Business).
Maybe they figure liberals are the welfare recipients - except that is
such a small population that contains both conservatives and liberals.
(look at the voting patterns in our poorest states).
Maybe it is "whomever is voting on the other side is selfish".
Otherwise they would vote the Right way.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
Nov 13, 2012, 10:59:02 AM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:21:48 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:13:00 -0800 (PST), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
><la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And people voted for more gifts from the government, transfers from those of us who have earned assets to those who have earned NOTHING!
>
>
>I was surprised when I was listening to a podcast talking about how
>people react to others on the other side of the political spectrum. A
>conservative couldn't understand how her sister could be a caring
>person and also be a liberal - after all, liberals were all selfish!!!
>
>My pre-conception was that conservatives were much more selfish than
>liberals. After all, red states get more of the federal spending
>than they pay. Conservatives are much more against any kind of
>welfare for the poor. (although Republicans and Democrats both
>believe in welfare for Big Business).
>
>Maybe they figure liberals are the welfare recipients - except that is
>such a small population that contains both conservatives and liberals.
>(look at the voting patterns in our poorest states).
>
>Maybe it is "whomever is voting on the other side is selfish".
>Otherwise they would vote the Right way.
I will note that as a libertarian, I'm not generous. I support many
kinds of payments to programs that help the poor - but as investments
towards my country's economic strength much more than out of moral
obligation. Certainly fundamentalist Christians who actually care
about the example of Jesus Christ would be obligated to exactly the
opposite.
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:13:00 -0800 (PST), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
><la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And people voted for more gifts from the government, transfers from those of us who have earned assets to those who have earned NOTHING!
>
>
>I was surprised when I was listening to a podcast talking about how
>people react to others on the other side of the political spectrum. A
>conservative couldn't understand how her sister could be a caring
>person and also be a liberal - after all, liberals were all selfish!!!
>
>My pre-conception was that conservatives were much more selfish than
>liberals. After all, red states get more of the federal spending
>than they pay. Conservatives are much more against any kind of
>welfare for the poor. (although Republicans and Democrats both
>believe in welfare for Big Business).
>
>Maybe they figure liberals are the welfare recipients - except that is
>such a small population that contains both conservatives and liberals.
>(look at the voting patterns in our poorest states).
>
>Maybe it is "whomever is voting on the other side is selfish".
>Otherwise they would vote the Right way.
kinds of payments to programs that help the poor - but as investments
towards my country's economic strength much more than out of moral
obligation. Certainly fundamentalist Christians who actually care
about the example of Jesus Christ would be obligated to exactly the
opposite.
0 new messages