Category Archives: Conservatism

Decentralizing and Deregulating Republican Politics

Conservatism, Elections, Media, Politics, Regulation, Republicans

Even a hint of the dreaded GOP establishment creeping back into their midst has some in the Republican campaigns screaming for an exorcist.

Via Breitbart:

Several 2016 GOP presidential campaigns are now revolting, not just against the Republican National Committee (RNC) controlling the debate process, but against controversial GOP establishment lawyer Ben Ginsberg’s efforts to insert himself into the process.
Aides to four top campaigns—those of billionaire Donald Trump, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich—have all confirmed they will not sign onto a letter organized by Ginsberg after the GOP presidential campaigns all broke from the RNC on Sunday night.

For some candidates it’s all for show: Kasich is establishment. Ditto Christie. Others are for real. But it’s all good. Any challenge to the existing political order is good. The Republican campaigns have begun divesting the Republican National Committee (RNC) of its overweening powers. Why should a central command apparatus control the political process? When it comes to libertarian candidates, we know how the RNC has behaved. The campaigns are also firing a media organ that, together with party apparatchiks, has generally been a bad-faith broker between the public, on the one hand, and any Republican, libertarian or constitutionally minded political candidate.

At this point, in this magnificent upheaval in American party politics, Fox News fans should take a moment to consider why it is that most of the network’s anchors were almost as livid as the liberal media over the ongoing revolt among the ranks of the candidates. The reason is that Fox News is mainstream media. Fox even set the tone of the debates, with a performance almost as odious as that of CNBC. Come to think of it, only little Andy Cooper of CNN did his journalistic due diligence as debate moderator, this year.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conservatives for Abolishing the Fact of Evil

Conservatism, Ethics, Media, Morality, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Reason

“Conservatives For Abolishing The Fact Of Evil” is the current column, now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. An excerpt:

The public personas who pass as conservatives are NOT system builders. We know them as conservatives not by their well thought-out, philosophically consistent thinking; but because they’ve staked out certain positions on The Issues, over time.

“Gun violence” is the term used by conservatives with this messy habit of mind. A careful thinker would allude to “goon violence.”

“For guns are not the root cause of man’s evil actions. Neither are the multiplying categories of manufactured illness in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Evil is integral to the human condition, always has been, always will be. Evil can’t be wished away, treated away, medicated away or legislated away. It is here to stay.”

In cahoots with their left-liberal partners in crime, conservative jurists, journalists, politicians and pundits now routinely debase this moral vocabulary. “Gun violence,” they all jabber, is caused by mental illness.

Their cure for goon violence: Bring in the big therapeutic guns to do the diagnosing. With state imprimatur, the witch doctors will lay the “scientific” cornerstone for walling-in society’s oddballs.

Democrats concur: If someone does something awfully wicked, he must have an illness as real as cancer or Alzheimer’s.

Still, progressives are pioneers in abolishing the fact of evil and replacing it with a diagnosis amenable to state intervention. Did not Joseph Stalin replace the wisdom of the ages with a scientific system that deployed the therapeutic idiom to murder and imprison dissenters? Yes he did.

But while they dare not cop to it openly, a secondary goal exclusive to progressives is to destroy the very idea of a self-reliant citizenry. …

… Read the rest on The Unz Review.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: It takes A Special Kind Of Stupid To Lose Moral High-Ground To Planned Parenthood

Conservatism, Federalism, Law, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Morality, Republicans, Uncategorized

Progressives are evil, immoral; as clueless as the pope in their arrogant ignorance of the American political system and the role of government in the American federal scheme.

But one has to be a special kind of stupid to lose the moral high ground to the 500,000 dollars-a-year babe (Cecile Richards) and her congressional harpies, who plump for public funding for Planned Parenthood.

THAT Republicans certainly are. (I say this as a libertarian who doesn’t see how, in a free world, one can agitate for the arrest of a woman for what she does with her property: her body and all that’s in it. I do, however, see a clear and logical way to argue the outlaw of late-term abortion. The reasoning I’ll share in a new book.)

Progressives are gloating: “The GOP still has nothing to show for its anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.”

UPDATE: What I mean by outlawing” late-term abortion is arguing convincingly—well, almost convincingly, since it’s pretty hard—against the practice of late-term abortion based on libertarian reasoning. Libertarian law turns on private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. You cannot initiate aggression against a non-aggressor. To aggress against a woman for what she does to her body, however much you abhor the practice, flies in the face of libertarianism.

So the challenge is arguing for that aggression in the case of a late-term child. It’s almost impossible logically, but I think it can be done. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing from religious libertarians how they’d argue for outlawing abortion. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Not sure it works in libertarian law. But please share. Don’t bother specifying that abortion should not be funded by the state. We all agree. In fact, this is the central silliness of the Repubs; they can’t explain to silly bimbos that to defund abortion is not to ban abortion.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Ron Unz On ‘Intelligence Squared’

Conservatism, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, Labor

An internet search, following a viewing of the latest “Intelligence Squared Debate” on BBC News, revealed that the illustrious Ron Unz, publisher of America’s smartest webzine, The Unz Review, had appeared on the forum. Well, of course. Ron was selected to debate against the proposition, “Let Anyone Take A Job Anywhere.” (For the proposition is young Professor Bryan Caplan, who is also well-known in libertarian circles. But what on earth is Margaret Hoover doing on “The Intelligence Council”? That chick is as dumb as they come. )

In “We Are The World,” I wrote that “An interminable supply of … workers creates its own economic realities, chief of which is a shift to labor-intense, rather than innovation-oriented, forms of production. A never-ending supply of cheap and unskilled workers actually retards the productivity and progress of a modern economy by preventing mechanization and delaying important breakthroughs, thus reducing competitiveness. More important, the purely economic argument about the price at which American workers will perform menial work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—a nation. Render asunder the idea of a nation, make borders obsolete—and the world is your labor market. …”

From the transcripts:

Ron, you have one of those very, very disparate resumes that intelligence Squared loves. You’re a physicist by training. But then you were a founder and chairman of Wall Street Analytics, which is a financial services software company. Then you ran for governor of California. Then you were a publisher of the American Conservative.
You’ve been described, quote, unquote, as a “nerdy guy who lives and breathes policy and politics.” And I hope you know that in the intelligence Squared universe that makes you a sex symbol. …

… Let’s think a little bit about what this means. Now, you know, I’m laboring under a disadvantage in this debate because not only am I not a trained economist, I’ve never even taken a class in economics. I’ve never even opened an economics textbook. I personally don’t claim to really understand most economics. I’m not convinced everybody else understands economics that well either. But one part of economics that is very well established, a very simple issue, is the law of supply and demand. Think of what production means. The two main factors in production are labor and capital. Together, those factors produce everything we have in our society. owing an unlimited number of additional workers from everywhere in the world to come here and take jobs would massively, massively increase the supply of labor. The result would be tremendously disadvantaging labor at the expense of capital. In effect, order workers, ordinary citizens, people basically who work for a living would be tremendously economically disadvantaged by the fact that they would be competing against a billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, an unlimited supply of additional foreign workers who
would take the job for whatever wage they could.

It’s true, certainly, there would be a huge increase in economic production, productivity, GNP. But almost all of it, and possibly even more than all of it would be captured by capital, captured by the wealthy people on that side of the equation. In other words, what we’re talking about is something that would be very beneficial for the top 1
percent, .1 percent, 2 percent, 5 percent, the wealthiest segment of American society. They would benefit, no doubt about it. Everybody else would suffer. I think that’s very clear, because when you’re talking about basically a hundred million or 150 million American workers, suddenly competing in an open labor market with a billion or 2 billion or 3 billion impoverished people from everywhere else in the world, they certainly would suffer.

Now, let’s think of what really has happened in American society over the last 20, 30, 40 years. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, over 20 years ago, pointed out that for two decades there had been no increase in average wage income in the United States. The standard of living of ordinary American workers had been stagnant for two decades. He said that 20 years ago. It’s now been 40 years. The income of the average American has been stagnant or declining for 40 years now, which is a shocking statistic that most people are not aware of. Clearly, there have been advances in technology so that in many ways people have a much better life than they did before with iPhones, with Google, with things like that. But in terms of real income, people are basically the same or poorer than they were decades ago.

And as Moynihan pointed out in the ’90s, that’s the longest period of economic stagnation that has happened in North America since European settlement began hundreds of years ago. Now, is it entirely coincidence that 40 years of economic stagnation for ordinary American workers is the same 40 years that has seen one of the highest rates of foreign immigration to the United States in our history? I think it’s more
than a coincidence. The point is, if you have a huge influx of willing workers from abroad, able to take any job they could because they come from poor countries, you’re going to drive down the wages of ordinary American workers who are competing with them. Allowing anyone to take a job anywhere in effect would convert America’s minimum wage into its maximum wage. And if you see the complaints right now over the 1 percent, over the wealthy elite who have tremendously benefited in the last few decades, while ordinary people, ordinary people in New York City or other places around the country have suffered, that would be tremendously exacerbated if you brought in tens or even hundreds of millions of impoverished workers from other countries to take their places.

Now, the point is, when you’re talking about the result of economic stagnation in the United States that has now gone on for 40 years for ordinary workers, the end result at some point may be severe political backlash. And that sort of thing is inevitable. The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That’s no longer true today. And it’s no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.

It’s true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And
their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one
reason for many of the problems we’ve had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don’t understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don’t rise for 40 years. And I think, unfortunately, that’s probably true today.

One other aspect of the American political dynamic has been that there’s an increasing centralization of politics in the hands of wealth; in other words, the people who fund the campaigns, the organizations that fund the campaigns. And when you have the wealthy people benefiting tremendously from a proposal like this, and everybody else suffering. But when the wealthy people fund the politicians,they fund the think tanks, they fund the universities, they fund the journals; it’s not too
surprising that some of these ideas become very common in such circles even if the end result would be disastrous for the United States. The bottom line is that letting anyone take a job anywhere might sound good in theory but it would destroy the United States and destroy the lives of ordinary workers. Thank you very much. …

… incomes have declined. And it’s simply due to job competition. Now, getting back, though, to the point that there was a lot of discussion about, regarding the Internet, I think it’s absolutely true that it’s impossible to prevent jobs from migrating over the Internet, technologically. You can’t stop that type of economic competition from
overseas workers. I think it’s also true that the wages and benefits of the sort of workers in America who are electrical engineers or software developers has been negatively impacted by foreign job competition over the Internet. I think it’s absolutely true. But those workers are among the best paid in the United States. So, the negative impact on them has been relatively mild in terms of society. In other words, electrical
engineers right now are very well paid.

But if not for the Internet, if not for Indian job competition, they would even be much better paid. But they’re not the people I think
we have to worry about. We have to worry about the ordinary workers in the United States, the working class, which is, like, 60, 70, 80 percent of society. They are the ones whose jobs cannot be sent over the Internet. And to exacerbate that problem by having physical job competition as well as Internet job competition would, I think, make things much, much worse for that group


These themes are discussed on, Search under “Outsourcing” and “Labor,” or for these titles:

* Why Aren’t The H-1B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 “Extraordinary Ability” Visa? 11/18/2008
*U.S. Jobs: Reach for the Stars or a Hammer 5/11/2004 *OUTSOURCING AMERICAN LIVES: A LIBERTARIAN ALTERNATIVE 12/26/2003

UPDATE (9/20): IN SOME PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, especially the enormous companies whose structure begins to resemble that of government, one needs to halve the IQ first, and take courses in “emotional intelligence” to get along and climb the proverbial ladder. Yes, that’s what industry does to Natural Leaders.

“When we grow up, we want to be like government” seems to be the motto of the massive high-tech companies.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

ET TU, Glenn Beck?

Conservatism, Elections, Glenn Beck, Media, Race, Republicans

Glenn Beck is insufferably sanctimonious and impossible to listen to as a broadcaster. Since the Glenn guy is not working with much, to put it charitably, he has been unable to discern the reasons for the support Donald Trump has garnered among GOPers. This backing lies in Trump’s following being able to viscerally, if not intellectually, sense the following:

To understand why his campaign has legs, it is necessary to grasp the difference between The Donald and The Career Politician. Why so? Because although his supporters can ill-articulate these differences, they live them and feel them viscerally. Their reaction to Mr. Trump is informed by a sense of Trump the private citizen, the businessman, the anti-politician. As such, they grasp that Trump’s reality, incentives and motives sharply diverge from those of the professional politician. His reasons for doing what he’s doing are different.

Differently put: A successful politician and a successful businessman represent two solitudes, never the twain shall meet—except when the capitalist must curry favor with the politician so as to further his business interests, a reality brought about by corrupt politics. Trump’s donations to both parties fit a pattern forced by the regulatory state, whereby, in order to keep doing business, business is compelled to buy-off politicians.

MORE IN MY “Trump Should Triangulate.”

“Radio host Glenn Beck doubled down in his game of race-card Blackjack against Trump supporters,” reports WND:

“Beck took to Facebook Tuesday night and reiterated his stance against the GOP front-runner’s base: it is composed of fake tea party members who dislike President Obama because he is black. …”

WND cites Trump supporters in their own defense:

“I have been a Tea Party member for years and I support Trump. I despise the ‘Republicans’ who lie to us just to get elected then work with Obama. You say that you just don’t understand why people support Trump. You say ‘he is just a TV star’. Ronald Reagan was ‘just a TV star’ and he was the best President ever,” wrote Rick Henry. “I have watched you since you first started babbling about being a conservative … and you still just continue to babble foolish things.”

“Americans are tired of being told they suck and they are stupid. They are tired of being put behind non-Americans in our own country. Donald is saying he will fix that. You are assuming the American people are stupid. If you want Ted Cruz as the nominee you need to get Ted Cruz to open his mouth and speak the truth to the American people,” added Deb Medley-Kammerer.

Slick Republican strategist Rick Wilson, by the way, is a regular on CNN and is more disgusting than cretin S.E. Cupp, if not nearly as dumb as her. “Wilson recently accused Breitbart’s editor-in-chief Alex Marlow of covering the billionaire real estate mogul for website traffic. He also asked Ann Coulter on Twitter if Trump pays her ‘more for anal.’ The tweet was quickly deleted.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Why Scott Walker Is A Two Percenter

Conservatism, Elections, Europe, Foreign Policy, IMMIGRATION, Middle East, Neoconservatism

Off the top of my head, let me share the unintelligent blather of Scott Walker, the man I call The Equal Opportunity Fencer (read why). Unlike the pundits who are ALWAYS wrong (as illustrated in 2004 ), yet keep returning to the national stage for encores—the base seems to have wizened up to neoconservatives like Walker. I’m really buoyed by the lack of support the likes of Walker and Bobby Jindal are getting from the GOP base: two and zero percent, respectively, in the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Oblivious to the poor marks his opinions have received from the public, Walker waffled to Sean Hannity about the refugees currently immobilizing life in Germany, Hungary, Austria ect.

First there were the obligatory expressions of empathy for the incomers. Not a word of sympathy was offered up by the host or his guest for the Europeans whose communities are being flooded by decree from Brussels and Berlin.

Next came Walker’s neocon, hackneyed lies about the root-causes of the migration problem (naturally, the magnet of welfare went unmentioned): Bashar Hafez al-Assad needs to be removed (Really? He was the source of stability in Syria, much like Saddam Hussein was in Iraq).

If the root causes of refugee influx into Europe is America’s lack of a more energetic involvement in Iraq and Syria—then Walker has the solution the Republican base is rejecting: back in we go.

Not for nothing is Walker a two percenter. Unless in defense of the realm, Americans are not keen on more of the same foreign-policy folly. Let us keep our military mitts to ourselves. Let us defend our own borders. That’s finally the prevailing sentiment among Republicans.

What else did Walker do to promote his brand of stupidity? For having the perspicacity to see something unique in the Trump phenomenon, GOPers have been maligned by pundits as stupid, ignorant, mere reality show watchers. Walker does not go so far. But he does dismiss the undeniable fact that Republicans are seething with good, honest rage. To the contrary, claimed Walker, singing from the same hymn sheet Republicans sang from in the last election cycle. The people are never angry. (What’s wrong with righteous anger? Nothing!). The people only want brainiacs like him to stop the gridlock and “get things done.”

Fuck off, Scott walker. As I read it, the base wants government to reverse the things it has done; to repeal laws, wars, and to do no harm.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint