Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Andy Sullivan: Struggling to Stay Relevant

Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism, War

Like the late Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan lacks a philosophical core. Unlike Hitchens, Sullivan is not a formidable intellect, rhetorician and writer. Hitchens didn’t have to struggle to stay interesting. Sullivan does. The fruits of Sullivan’s Struggle are splayed on the latest cover of Newsweek, provocatively titled, “President Obama: The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan.”

Like any liberal who doesn’t have to worry about a pay cheque, crunchy con Sullivan is still convinced that Barack Obama can “hold his staff out” over stormy waters, and divide the sea so that the people may pass through “with a wall of water on either side.”

Obama’s “tally of achievements is formidable,” declares Sullivan, who then proceeds to praise every thing BHO has done to cripple the American economy (including extending or entrenching US hegemony abroad):

…the near-obliteration of al Qaeda, democratic revolutions in the Arab world that George Bush could only have dreamed of, the re-regulation of Wall Street after the 2008 crash, stimulus investments in infrastructure and clean energy, powerful new fuel-emission standards along with a record level of independence from foreign oil, and, most critically, health-care reform. Now look at what Obama’s second term could do for all of these achievements. It would mean, first of all, that universal health care in America—government subsidies to people so they can afford to purchase private insurance and a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions—becomes irreversible. Yes, many details of the law would benefit from reform, experimentation, and fixes—especially if Republicans help to make them. But it’s still the biggest change in American health care since the passage of Medicare in 1965.

Sullivan’s piece tells you about the degree to which neocon and left-liberal political “thinking” have converged.

On war too.

Crunchy con Sullivan’s anti-war followers should not forget what was documented in “Confess, Clinton; Say You’re Sorry, Sullivan“:

Senator Hillary Clinton and neoconservative blogger Andrew Sullivan share more than a belief that “Jesus, Mohamed, and Socrates are part of the same search for truth.” They’re both Christians who won’t confess to their sins.
Both were enthusiastic supporters of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, turned scathing and sanctimonious critics of the war. Neither has quite come clean. Both ought to prostrate themselves before those they’ve bamboozled, those they’ve helped indirectly kill, and whichever deity they worship. (The Jesus-Mohamed-and-Socrates profanity, incidentally, was imparted by Sullivan, during a remarkably rude interview he gave Hugh Hewitt. The gay activist-cum-philosopher king was insolent; Hewitt took it .)
I won’t bore you with the hackneyed war hoaxes Sullivan once spewed, only to say that there was not an occurrence he didn’t trace back to Iraq: anthrax, September 11, and too few gays in the military—you name it; Iraq was behind it. Without minimizing the role of politicians like Clinton, who signed the marching orders, pundits like Sullivan provided the intellectual edifice for the war, also inspiring impressionable young men and women to sacrifice their lives and limbs to the insatiable Iraq Moloch.

Ryan, Ayn And Rachel The Wretch

Capitalism, Elections, Free Markets, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Morality, Objectivism, Political Philosophy, Republicans

The excerpt is from the current column, “Ryan, Ayn And Rachel The Wretch,” now on RT:

“… Unrelenting in maligning Ayn Rand, [Rachel] Maddow ended [her diatribe] on a loud moo:

‘In Ayn Rand’s novel, she leads her readers to see the wealthiest people as heroes, heroes that must be protected. The rich are heroes and everybody else is a taker. The more the rich have, the better. The better for everyone. That is not fiscal conservatism either. It is something else.’

Rubbish. Rand scorned those rich whose ill-gotten gains were derived by using the coercive power of the state—Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, to mention a few. In Rand’s book, these men have not earned an honest crust.

Rand’s celebrated ‘rich’ were the men and women who bring to market the products and services without which life would be miserable, and for which Maddow is a walking ad.

The clothes she is kitted-out in, her coif; the devices she uses to communicate and transmit her sub-intelligent message, the food she buys cheaply to sustain her efforts—these are all produced, facilitated or brought to market by the invisible hand she labors to lop-off.

The ‘rich’ were voted into riches by the only democratic vote—the dollar power of the ungrateful masses, who, like Maddow, cannot do without the computers; software, hardware, hand-held devices, air conditioning, airplanes, apparel—on and on—the rich provide.

The Left treats ‘The Rich’ as a reified, rigid state-of-being. Ayn Rand—and all men and women of reason—understand that ‘rich’ is a work in progress.

Achieved through voluntary cooperation, riches are a reward for work well done. (Which is why this book is well-worth buying.)

Read the complete column, “Ryan, Ayn And Rachel The Wretch,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY:

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

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–“

‘You Didn’t Build That’: Obama’s Political Epitaph

Barack Obama, Government, History, Human Accomplishment, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Socialism

“‘You Didn’t Build That’: Obama’s Political Epitaph” is the current column, now on RT. Here is an excerpt:

“… Not once but four times did Obama repeat the gist of his clinching line, ‘You didn’t build that.’ With each iteration, his voice dripped contempt for individual achievement.

‘…you didn’t get there on your own.
You didn’t get there on your own.
If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.
Somebody else made that happen.’

‘You didn’t build That’ will be Barack Obama’s political epitaph.

Obama’s collectivism, and vertiginous ignorance, called for a one-two punch. A knockout. Patrick J. Buchanan was the only rightist—I hesitate to libel Mr. Buchanan as a Republican—who delivered the blow.

‘Barack Obama, with due respect, does not understand America — at least that part of America that produces and creates,’ roared Buchanan on Fox News. ‘Obama spent his whole life in tax-exempt, tax-subsidized and tax-supported institutions. Does he not understand what creates the wealth in America?’

‘For the first 175 years of our existence as a people, there was no federal government. Who does he think created that country of 3 million who defeated the greatest empire in the world, other than the individuals who built the farms and little factories; who clothed and fed and housed themselves and created one of the greatest societies on earth, again, before the federal government was created?’

Indeed, America is the culmination of the individual principle of voluntary cooperation…

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

With these remarks, Obama has come out of the closet as a most odious collectivist, who believes religiously that government predation is a condition for production. Or, put simply, that the parasite created the host.

With his near-religious repetition of the ‘you didn’t build that’ phrase, the president of the United States demonstrated his faith in the statist principle of compulsory cooperation. …”

The complete column, “‘You Didn’t Build That’: Obama’s Political Epitaph,” can be read on RT.

Also available from WND is my book, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.” The paperback edition features bonus material, including an Afterword by Burkean philosopher Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. Order it from WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY:

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.