Category Archives: Conservatism

CPAC: The Collapse Of The Conservative Movement

Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Islam, The West

Peter Brimelow captures the collapse in all its vivid, vacuous details. Here are some select excerpts:

“Now, perhaps symptomatic of the general collapse of the Conservative Movement, CPAC is vastly larger but there is no central narrative, and above all, no dissent. …”

“Even back in the 1970s, you sometimes got the feeling that CPAC was run for the benefit of an in-group, despoiling but secretly despising us hayseeds from the boondocks. This is now flagrant. Of course, ‘Inside the Beltway’ has become an intoxicating, and notoriously insular, city-state. Still I’ve never seen a conference in which the speakers and celebrities were so systematically protected, with screened walkways and greenrooms, from contamination by the hoi polloi, general and Diamond alike. …”

“But, basically, I haven’t seen such a cattle call/mass rape of grass roots contributors since I went to my first and last Inaugural Ball in 1980. …”

“In fact, Ann Coulter’s rapid-fire liberal-bashing knockabout routine (much harder than it looks) was easily the most interesting performance. Ann has many jealous detractors among her supposed allies on the Establishment Right, but I have a lot of respect for her intellect and would guess that she could have developed the best political argument too. Significantly, however, she chose not to do so. …” [My emphasis: Peter is polite about Coulter’s lack of intellectual leadership on crucial issues. She’s capable of so much more.]

“Before the conference, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer searingly denounced ‘the Norquistian Islam-Is-A-Religion-of-Peace orthodoxy that prevails at CPAC,’ telling Newsweek that ‘conservatives…were fearful of being accused of being anti-Islamic or racist for associating with [Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian currently being prosecuted for his opposition to Islamization]”.

“And in fact CPAC did not, as Spencer obviously anticipated, find room in its program for Wilders. Instead, he spoke to a packed ancillary meeting organized by supporters.”

“The immigration issue … was almost invisible. At VDARE.COM we have chronicled its inexorable emergence at CPAC, in 2003 (when Michelle Malkin got a standing ovation), 2005 (when Tamar Jacoby was booed) and 2007 (when, with help from some Presidential candidates, immigration reform patriots dominated the sessions). At every stage, it has been apparent that the CPAC audience was solidly in favor of immigration control.”

“No doubt for that reason, this year the CPAC managers took the incredible decision not to discuss immigration at all. …”

Read “‘Regardless Of Their Doom/The Little Victims Play’: CPAC, Frum, Limbaugh…And America?”

Neocon Deluxe, David Frum, Damns Rush

Conservatism, libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, The State, War

Neoconservative David Frum has really done it this time. Recall, for disavowing the war in Iraq, and being critical of the amorphous, ever-morphing War on Terror, he went after paleos, daring to call the likes of Pat Buchanan unpatriotic. (I responded on LewRockwell.com: “FRUM’S FLIMFLAM.”)

Now Frum is gunning for Rush Limbaugh in the most poisonous manner. As you know, I’m no ditto head. I’m beholden to nobody and nothing but the truth, as I call it (and I’ve called it quite well, I might add).

However, I’d defend Limbaugh over and above a neoconservative of the deepest dye such as Frum, who has likened Rush to Jesse Jackson:

“Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s,” writes Frum, a former Bush speech writer who stabbed his own boss, George Bush, in the back.

The encomiums Frum offers to Obama have certainly landed him many a favorable interview in mainstream media—don’t those unwatchful dogs love centrists, even when the latter have been instrumental in agitating for unjust wars. (Ones where young people not their own fight and die.)

Here’s Frum juxtaposing Obama to Limbaugh (I’ll tell you now-now why this comparison is so singularly statist):

“On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.”

And Rush:

“And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.”

[SNIP]
What left-liberal pabulum. The focus on Rush’s exterior and the “self-indulgence” dismissal is repulsive. The free market, for the most, is how Limbaugh has earned the dough with which he feeds his alleged insatiable needs. I grant you that the man is excessively enmeshed with political power, but, overall, it’s fair to say that Limbaugh did not capture the market share of ditto heads he enjoys by political force.

Obama, on the other hand, has never earned an honest dime in his life. The president may be lean, fit and ascetic, but he has done so on the backs of taxpayers; he’s the very definition of a PARASITE of the political class.

For the most, and as much as I disdain his Bush alliance, Limbaugh has made his living via the economic means. The political class and its sycophants—senators, congressmen, presidents, their speechwriters, lawyers, and lobbyists—they utilize the political means to earn their keep. The first relies on voluntary associations and is free of coercion; the last is coercive and involuntary.

As libertarian economist Murray Rothbard reminded, these “are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth”—the economic means is honest and productive, the political means is dishonest and predatory…but oh so very effective.

The fact that Frum can’t tell the two apart tells us all we need to know about David. In this particular tiff, better to cheer Rush Limbaugh than slip between the sheets with Frum and his ilk. These effetes also campaigned against Sarah Palin because they look down on her. (And perhaps because their wives are such gossips.)

An excellent start for movement conservatives in reclaiming conservatism, the Republican Party, and exciting the base, would be to distance themselves from neoconservatives, starting with David Frum.

Let me preempt: Too many libertarians sit on the fence, holier than thou, refusing to engage the issues of the day, because oh-so superior. I disagree with such aloofness. Although I come from a different ideological solitude than Frum/Rush, I am convinced of the need to remain engaged, so as to keep proving that mine is the better perspective. This cannot be achieved without getting involved in the day’s rough-and-tumble.

Update II: Addicted To That Rush

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Drug War, Music, Republicans, War on Drugs

“The title of this column comes not from Rush Limbaugh’s unfortunate addiction to prescription drugs, but from the eponymous ‘Mr. Big’ hit. (They don’t make musicians like Paul Gilbert and Billy Sheehan any longer, but I digress.) Nevertheless it alludes to another of Rush’s missed opportunities: Speaking against a war into which he was involuntarily drafted and almost destroyed.”

“Rush rightly denounced the State’s failed war on poverty. It failed not because fighting poverty is not a noble cause, but because, given the perverse incentives it entrenches, government is incapable of winning such a war. The same economic and bureaucratic perversions make another of the State’s stalemated wars equally unwinnable and ruinous: the War on Drugs.”

“Lysander Spooner, the great, American 19th-century theorist of liberty, defined vices as those acts ‘by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which a man harms the person or property of another.’ A conservative worth his salt should know the difference; and should know that government has no business treating vices as crimes.”

“If for harming himself a man forfeits his freedom, then he is not free at all. …”

The excerpt is from my new WND column, “Addicted To That Rush.” It brings together, somehow, the Steele-Limbaugh spat, the Bush/Barack death wish for America, the progressive rock group “Mr. Big,” and much more.

Update I (March 6): Sigh. Over at The View From The Right, Larry Auster and readers discuss (rather obsessively) the one-word change I made in quoting Auster in “Addicted To That Rush.”

Auster had written:

“…their criticisms of Obama will have the stink of rank partisanship.”

I changed that to:

“…their criticisms of Obama will have the [odor] of rank partisanship.”

Let me indulge Auster’s readers: First, the change was introduced quite appropriately, encased thus []. Next, there was no deep deception, just an editorial choice. The reader Leonard D. got the issue of redundancy right, writing:

“My guess as to what Mercer did not like about ‘the stink of rank partisanship’ is that it is redundant, ‘rank’ being almost synonymous with “stinky.”

However, and not withstanding Leonard D.’s valid point, I’d have expected traditionalists to get that “stink” is rather crass and certainly very earthy. A good word, no doubt, but not the most refined one when used by a woman. Again: an honest word, for sure, but I don’t like “stink” because of its connotations (bodily fluids, etc., say no more).

Traditionalists, generally hip to the vulgarization of society, should have been hip to this preference. I simply chose a daintier, less vulgar word.

There is a time and a place for everything, and I have indeed used strong language to describe elected officials on the blog (but not in columns).

Update II: The spouse, also the best guitarist I know, tells me that Paul Gilbert located to Japan, where there is a vast audience for maestros of guitar and progressive rock. It figures: the Japanese also have aggregate higher IQs than the local Coldplay fans, to whom complexity and competence are cuss words.

Update II: Mr. Constitution?

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul

At 13 percent, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin were tied in a presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. A point made in “Sensational Sarah” obtains: “Would that Rep. Ron Paul, the only politician who adheres to America’s founding philosophy, was Palin’s running mate, wisely steering her boundless energy and excellent instincts in excising the cancer from the body politic.”

As for the other straw “winners”; they’re real losers. Mitt Romney came first (“best 2012 GOP presidential candidate”). Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was the runner-up.

My colleague Vox Day sums it up:

“These results tend to indicate that a little more than one-quarter of the ‘conservatives’ at CPAC have a functional brain. Romney is a liberal technocrat. Jindal is a little goblin who just blew his first moment on the national stage.”

An award for upholding the Constitution belonged to Congressman Paul but went to Rush Limbaugh.

On the merits of that award collected by Rush, I once angered ditto heads for pointing out, in “It’s About Federalism, Stupid!”, Rush’s ruthless and unconstitutional case against actor Michael Fox on the matter of stem cell research and the fetus fetish:

“The pompous talk-show host’s sneering assault on a deformed Michael J. Fox was utterly depraved. Aping Fox’s Parkinson’s-induced spasms, Limbaugh told listeners: “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act.” Rather than lampoon an-obviously afflicted human being, someone with a head and a heart would have stuck to the issue.

And the issue is this: The founders bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. Intellectual property laws are the only constitutional means at Congress’s disposal with which to “promote the Progress of Science.” (About their merit Thomas Jefferson, himself an inventor, was unconvinced.) The Constitution gives Congress only 18 specific legislative powers. Research and development spending is nowhere among them.

Neither are Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses—you name it, it’s likely unconstitutional. There is simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does.”

Update I (March 2): About the welfare clause, “and Congress will have the power…to provide for the general welfare”: Article I, Section 8 our overlords have taken to mean that government can pick The People’s pocketbooks for any possible project, even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated.

Asks historian Thomas E. Woods Jr.: “What point would there be in specifically listing the federal government’s powers if the general welfare clause had already provided the government with an essentially boundless authority to enact whatever it thought would contribute to people’s well-being?” Woods evokes no less an authority than the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison: “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

The complete column is “The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil.”

Update II: With respect to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Barbara makes a good point. Having spoken openly about decentralization and devolution of power to the states, Jindal is considerably more conservative than most of the Republican governors. Not being as pale as Palin—he is of Indian descent—Jindal has diversity on his side. He is therefore less likely than, say Sarah, to be condemned as a “conservative zealot.”