Category Archives: Conservatism

UPDATE II: The Neoconservative Project Lives (Paul Ryan’s ‘Conservative’ Record)

Conservatism, Debt, Elections, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, War

On Mitt Romney’s choice of “vice presidential running mate,” I’ll cut and paste what I wrote on 01.13.11 and on January 10, of the same year, about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who, like Romney, is a nice enough man, but no candidate for the change the US needs.

No wonder neoconservative kingpin Bill Kristol had anointed the House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan as heir apparent to the neoconservative project. He is “strong on national defense,” Kristol repeated twice to Neil Cavuto with that broad Cheshire-Cat grin of his.

Could the neoconservative kingpin be licking his chops for war? Is Iran on the chopping block? What else would make a religious proponent of big government and American manifest destiny so smitten?

If Bill Kristol was this excited about the prospects of a Romney-Ryan run for president—it must mean the promise of killing and carnage.

Remember, moreover, that Ryan is a strategist; he has more plans than principles. You and I do not want to see the debt ceiling raised. But for some reason, Ryan thought ours was a “tactic” that was not “viable.” Tactic? Come Again? Ryan clearly believes that the US government’s ability to borrow must be sustained as part of the neoconservative national-pride dybbuk.

Ryan had stated his willingness, however, to “tack on requirements for deep spending cuts as a condition of passage.” Why, thank you, Sir.

When it comes to serious spending cuts, Republicans intend to do no more than tinker around the edges. Time and again, John Stossel has exposed just how little they will do to beat back the federal behemoth:

New Speaker John Boehner, leader of the Republicans who now control the House, says he wants to cut spending. When he was sworn in last week, he declared: “Our spending has caught up with us. … No longer can we kick the can down the road.”
But when NBC anchorman Brian Williams asked him to name a program “we could do without,” he said, “I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.”
Give me a break! You mean to tell me the Republican leader in the House doesn’t already know what he wants to cut? I don’t know which is worse — that he doesn’t have a list or that he won’t talk about it in public.
The Republicans say they’ll start by cutting $100 billion, but let’s put that in perspective. The budget is close to $4 trillion. So $100 billion is just 2.5 percent. That’s shooting too low. Firms in the private sector make cuts like that all the time. It’s considered good business — pruning away deadwood.
GOP leaders say the source of their short-run cuts will be discretionary non-security spending. They foolishly exclude entitlement spending, which Congress puts on autopilot, and all spending for national and homeland security (whether it’s necessary or not). That leaves only $520 billion.
So even if the Republicans managed to cut all discretionary non-security spending (which is not what they plan), the deficit would still be $747 billion. (The deficit is now projected to be $1.267 trillion.)
This is a revolution? Republicans will have to learn that there is no budget line labeled “waste, fraud, abuse.” If they are serious about cutting government, they will ax entire programs, departments and missions.

UPDATE I (Aug. 12): PAUL RYAN’S ‘CONSERVATIVE’ RECORD. Via Jane Aitken, Founder, NH Tea Party Coalition:

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education

Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

“Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.”

“According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, ‘[Paul Ryan]”… “hyped as a conservative rock-star’ …. ‘gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede.’ Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”

UPDATE II: Boorish neoconservatives (bores too) tout the Ryan choice for VP, on Meet The Press (which always transcribes programs):

BILL BENNETT:

“Well, I see Paul Ryan is a serious man for serious times. And here’s what I think. It is a clear choice. There will be a serious debate. If people will pause and think about the debate, think about the arguments and take Paul Ryan’s arguments seriously that he will make and lead on.
And he’s got a winning way. This is one of the reasons he was picked. This guy has a way of presenting things that makes people listen. He’s got that Jack Kemp style and wins over a lot of people. If they pause and reflect on it and see the problems that we have and his solutions I think we have a very good chance of winning.
If we stay at the cheap shot level, that Mitt Romney kills people, Mitt Romney is a vulture capitalist, then we have a problem. What Ryan does is gives the campaign definition, as Chuck Todd said yesterday, but gives it reality too. You don’t have a caricature of Paul Ryan now to talk about. You have to deal with Paul Ryan. And I very much look forward to that Biden-Ryan debate.”

RICH LOWRY:

“I think it’s a pick that really speaks well for Mitt Romney. Shows he has a good eye for talent. Shows he is bolder and more creative than some of us even supporters of his had given him credit for. And shows, David, a real commitment to getting some big things done.
And he wasn’t going to win a strictly safe or a strictly biographical campaign. This pick puts the accent more on substance and puts the guy on the ticket who’s perhaps best capable among current Republicans to defend a forward-looking agenda.
And the Medicare attack was going to come regardless, because Mitt Romney is already in favor of (UNINTEL) support for Medicare. And, look, Democrats are already accusing Mitt Romney of killing someone and they haven’t even gotten to Medicare yet. So the Medicare attacks are–“

UPDATE III (1/1/021): Abortion And A Woman’s Title In Her Body

Abortion, Conservatism, Ethics, Feminism, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Private Property

Leave a reply

It is clearly untrue to say that a paleolibertarian is one who always opposes a woman’s absolute dominion over her body, as a poster on Wendy McElroy’s Facebook Wall has implied.

Abortion is one hill I do not care to die on; I’ve committed enough professional Seppuku over the years. However, I have repeatedly stated that, for a classical liberal (at least), “it’s [highly] problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a title in her body.”

To repeat, for me, abortion is not the hill to die on. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Division of labor and all that stuff; I’ll leave it to Wendy McElroy, who, I am sure, agrees that “libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure.”

Otherwise, here is Wendy’s brilliant articulation of self-ownership. Watch Wendy on Stossel’s, 7:28 minutes in:

Wendy McElroy: As far as I’m concerned, this is my skin. Everything beneath this skin belongs to me, or I don’t own anything. I am a self-owner-

John Stossel: Even if there is a living being inside you?

Wendy McElroy: If there is a living being inside me, I’m glad you used the word “being” and not “individual with rights,” if there is a living being inside me, it exists on my breath, it exists by my, the blood pumping through my veins, by the food I eat. It is within my skin, and if you say to me that there, that I do not have jurisdiction over my body, that, in fact, society or someone else has jurisdiction, the, the word that describes someone else owning my body is slavery.*

UPDATE I: Glad people have remained civil on Facebook, so far. That’s the way. Always. However much one disdains the procedure, you can’t get away from the fact of self-ownership. You have no right to take custody of another person’s body. They either own themselves or don’t.

You can’t “own” your body in conjunction with other busybodies.

UPDATE II (July 21):

From the hopeless Facebook thread:

Your tortured analogy, MW, does not hold or even come close. Any reasoning about this fraught topic must proceed, at the very least, from a correct analogy. This is why this debate cannot proceed from logic. People lose their logic (or perhaps they never had the ability to reason to begin with) when it comes to abortion. Enough, now folks. The most honest position the anti-a-woman’s-right-in-her-body proponents can advance is this: a woman, by virtue of her biology, does not have total title in her body. As a propertarian, I find this position untenable, but agree that individuals who hold it will try to finesse it. So this is the final word. “Respek,” as Ali Gi would say.

JV: This is what I mean by a lack of reasoning faculties on the topic, and plain dissembling. What irks here is not only that I said, “enough,” and this is my Wall. But that you, JV, frame your “distinguishing” argument” as exhaustive. The initiation of force is most certainly not the only distinguishing feature between the mother and the fetus. (Unrelated: there is a prerequisite for Facebook Friendship.)

UPDATE III (1/1/021):

Libertarians view women as having dominion over their bodies! My comment, then, is on the cultural specter of females freed from men, morality and tradition: how quickly they turn into diabolical libertines. Most women need traditional strictures to balance exhibitionism and promiscuity.

UPDATED: What Would John Randolph Of Roanoke Have Said?

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, States' Rights, The State

Obama’s remarks at Roanoke, Virginia, July 13, 2012, were more than a faux pas.

With these remarks, Obama has outed himself as a most odious collectivist, who believes that government predation is a condition for production:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

That snot Obama uttered these words in a place carrying the name Roanoke. I’m probably in a minority, but the place name makes me think of John Randolph of Roanoke, the great Southern agrarian, radical proponent of the states’ rights doctrine. John Randolph would have driven the parasite Obama off the commonwealth with force, if need be:

“Randolph was especially critical of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Con­stitution. He predicted that the great extension of the power of centralized government would someday occur through these legal avenues. Time has proven him correct.” John Randolph of Roanoke [was] an eccentric genius, unwilling to admit the slightest compromise with the new order. Randolph feared the results of excessive cen­tralization and the impersonality of a government too far removed from the varieties of local experi­ence. Discussing the House of Rep­resentatives, he asked: ‘But, Sir, how shall a man from Mackinaw or the Yellow Stone River respond to the sentiments of the people who live in New Hampshire? It is as great a mockery — a greater mockery, than it was to talk to those colonies about their virtual representation in the British par­liament. I have no hesitation in saying that the liberties of the colonies were safer in the custody of the British parliament than they will be in any portion of this country, if all the powers of the states as well as those of the gen­eral government are devolved upon this House.'”
“Russell Kirk makes Randolph’s attitude completely clear when he writes, ‘For Randolph, the real people of a country were its sub­stantial citizenry, its men of some property, its farmers and mer­chants and men of skill and learn­ing; upon their shoulders rested a country’s duties, and in their hands should repose its govern­ment.’ It is John Randolph who developed much of the political framework later brought to frui­tion by John Calhoun. The primary emphasis in that framework as it developed rested upon the doctrine of states’ rights, a position not without validity. Indeed, an ear­lier biographer of John Randolph, the almost equally eccentric and irascible Henry Adams, has sug­gested that the doctrine of states’ rights was in itself a sound and true doctrine: ‘As a starting point of American history and constitu­tional law, there is no other which will bear a moment’s examination.’
Randolph was especially critical of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Con­stitution. He predicted that the great extension of the power of centralized government would someday occur through these legal avenues. Time has proven him correct.” (“American Federalism: History,” by George Charles Roche III)

UPDATE (July 18): The Law by Frédéric Bastiat:

When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

He Contorts, Tom Woods Decides

Conservatism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Media, Republicans

If Bill O’Reilly proves anything (over and over again) it is that Gresham’s Law (generalized beyond economics) reigns supreme: Specious reasoning will always drive out careful thinking.

Against these odds, Tom Woods tackles O’Reilly’s reliably wonky “constitutional scholarship,” in a masterful YouTube clip, below:

From The O’Reilly Factor, email segment for July 5:

“Bill, you keep asking what the Republicans have to replace Obamacare. Under the Constitution, there is no role for the Federal government in healthcare.”
–Felicia

O’Reilly:
“That’s not true, Felicia. The opening paragraph of the Constitution says the welfare of the people must be promoted. A just healthcare system comes under that banner.”

[Tom Woods] couldn’t resist answering this [for which we should all be grateful].