Category Archives: Neoconservatism

UPDATED: Hit The Road, Schmo* (Some Ferguson Facts)

Barack Obama, Economy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Media, Neoconservatism

“A member of this global, glamorous elite; people who are at home in London and New York” is how Byron York wryly (and aptly) described economist Niall Ferguson (6 minutes into this clip). Ferguson has penned a Newsweek article, “Hit The Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President,“ which has infuriated the Obama-Head media. The Washington Examiner’s York set the scene for Ferguson’s defiance: “It is very fashionable among [this global elite] to support President Obama.”

From the perspective of the libertarian, Professor Ferguson’s piece is unremarkable (although, as I have said before in covering him, Ferguson’s knowledge is formidable).

On foreign policy, Ferguson accuses Obama of not being enough of a statist, which this neoconservative equates with statesmanship.

However, for a member of establishment intelligentsia to openly admit that Barack Obama doesn’t understand the issues about which he is supposed to decide; to intimate that he is the affirmative action appointee: Now, that is remarkable.

“You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

Except, I have to wonder who’s the real Schmo? The man who was led to believe that he was up to the task throughout his “career” trajectory, or the enablers and sycophants who enforced Barack Obama’s self-delusions.

I recall that when, in April 15, 2011, I wrote ‘You Can’t Fix Stupid,’ readers patiently explained to me that BHO was not stupid, only evil. (Even IQ ace Steve Sailer might have been gulled.) No. I’ve always maintained that Obama was cunning, but not clever.

But there is much more to the article. Read it.

(*Schmo: From Yiddish, dull, stupid, fool.)

UPDATE: Non-writers, or armchair scribblers, will be cavalier about the comprehensiveness of the Ferguson piece. I am not, for obvious reasons. I disagree with Ferguson on many issues—for example, he cites “official” unemployment figures, rather than real joblessness, which not even the U6 statistic covers.

In addition, his notion of GDP is in all likelihood off too; official GDP numbers are a gambit.

And, as far as the Killer Drone’s actions abroad go, Ferguson objects not so much to the stealth killing of innocents, but to the loss of “crucial intelligence” assets caused by BHO’s “assassination program.”

As for Ferguson’s China fear mongering; that was addressed in an earlier critique: “Chinese mercantilism is not free trade, but is it not better than American militarism?” You bet it is.

On and on.

I understand that all Ferguson’s condemners believe they could have bested the Prof. Still, Ferguson has done a serious service in so far as he has offered the first damning case against BHO from the perspective of mainstream.

Interesting excerpts:

…the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
…In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
…Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.
…By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), [government debt] will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.
…Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

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–“

‘As Happens With Many Dictators’

Barack Obama, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Islam, Journalism, Media, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, The State

“As happens with many dictators …they grow comfortable with power.”

So spoke a CNN guest about the leader of … Syria, Bashar al Assad. “The Fall of the House of Assad” was the book under discussion.

For a moment, I thought the interviewed author was discussing creeping tyranny closer to home, but then it slipped my mind. The mandarins of the mighty Managerial State that stalks America, and the Middle East’s tinpot despots: never the twain shall meet, right?

Wrong, in this writer’s opinion.

Nevertheless, the more powerful dictator can easily depose of the lesser despot.

Duly, buried in CNN programing, yesterday, was the news that, “President Obama has secretly authorized American covert support for the Syrian effort to depose dictator Bashar al-Assad. Two U.S. officials tell us the president has signed what’s called an intelligence finding laying things out.”

When he signed that is not known. Nor do we know the exact contents. We do know that it gives the CIA and other American agencies permission to provide covert support to oust Assad. The dictator has not been seen in public for weeks. Today he put out a written statement, again blaming his year and a half war on, quote, “the criminal terrorist gangs.” That’s the phrase he’s been using justifying destroying cities.

Has this item made news headlines anywhere? Naturally not—not as far as I can see. Both political parties are agreed that, as Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, explained, “We should assume, where we have foreign policy challenges around the world, this is what we have an intelligence community to do, right? To go in clandestinely, to support American policy around the world. And so I — it shouldn’t be surprising.”

[SNIP]

Correct. It shouldn’t surprise that The Decider, Republican or Democrat, commits funds not his to causes he fancies. But does the element of surprise cover this debate? Apparently so. At least from the perspective of the malfunctioning media.

UPDATE II: Mitt’s Foreign Policy Is Obama’s With A Daisy Cutter On Top (Unbridled, Bellicose American Exceptionalism)

Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

Today, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, Mitt Romney renewed his allegiance to the Obama-Bush Warfare State, only with a cherry on top.

Or make that a Daisy Cutter.

Romney accused BHO, aka, Killer Drone extraordinaire—the man who has “developed” new theaters of war for America across the world—of compromising the US’s bloated military-industrial-complex by cutting its budget.

“I am not ashamed of American power,” Romney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention …, adding “I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced.”
…Romney said he wanted to bring an “American century” in which the United States has the world’s strongest economy and military that secures peace through its strength.
“And if by absolute necessity we must employ it, we must wield our strength with resolve,” Romney said to applause. “In an American century, we lead the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”

Since Republicans and Democrats have comparable records on sustaining the Welfare-Warfare State, you should remember that, “each party operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back. … No sooner do the Republicans come to power, than they move to the left. When they get their turn, Democrats shuffle to the right. At some point, McCain reaches across the aisle and the creeps converge.”

UPDATE I: In reply to the thread on Facebook:

While I feel immense sympathy for the poor men who were drafted, I don’t begrudge those, like Romney, who were able to avoid the draft. What I despise is when the same people talk up wars that others’ children must fight. I want a law enacted now that would draft the Bush and McCain girls and the Romney boys to the front. Oh, I already wrote a column in “support of the draft…for politicians and bureaucrats.”

UPDATE II: Romney’s unbridled, Bellicose American exceptionalism:

From Berlin to Cairo to the United Nations, President Obama has shared his view of America and its place among nations. I have come here today to share mine.
I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country. I am not ashamed of American power. I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair. I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced. I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever.

About Mormonism and American exceptionalism, Amy Sullivan at The New Republic says this:

…an enthusiastic belief in American exceptionalism is part of Mormon culture and theology. There is the sacred significance of America as the setting for the Book of Mormon and the birth of the Latter-Day Saints. But there is also the belief by early LDS leaders that Mormons would one day rescue the country when it threatened to fall apart.
In an essay on this topic last month, Pat Bagley of the Salt Lake Tribune included this quote from Brigham Young: “There is not a Territory in the Union that is looked upon with so suspicious an eye as is Utah, and yet it is the only part of the nation that cares anything about the Constitution.” Bagley explained:
The Saints saw themselves as a link in a chain beginning with the Pilgrims, continuing through the Founding Fathers, and leading up to the establishment of Christ’s righteous government.

My position is this: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.