The Redhunter

February 27, 2008

William F Buckley Jr. - An Appreciation

I first heard about William F. Buckley, Jr. while at Radford University, sometime in the 1980-81 time period. I'd taken a few political science classes, and the professor mentioned him as being some sort of important conservative. He mentioned a magazine that Buckley had started, and I didn't catch the exact name. It had "review"? or maybe "national"? in the title; I wasn't sure. One thing I did know was that my political beliefs were already on the right side of the political spectrum.

So the next time I was at the university library, I went to the magazine section to see what I could find. Lo and behold, there it was, National Review. Obviously Radford was not the hotbed of leftist activism that had infected so many colleges and universities to allow such a publication in it's library.

From that day on I read National Review every time a new edition came out. During the summers I had to do without it, but immediately upon graduation in May of 1983 I took out a subscription, and have been addicted ever since. Of all the conservative publications I have sampled since then, none has had the appeal of National Review. Some of the reason for that is style, but most of it is political philosophy. I simply find myself most in tune with the opinion expressed in that magazine.

Indeed, this very blog is named after one of his books: The Redhunter

William F. Buckley, Jr. was probably the single most influential American political thinker of the second half of the twentieth century. No single person founded modern American liberalism, but modern conservatism got its start because of Buckley.

The two events that kicked it off, of course, were the publication of God and Man at Yale in 1951, and the founding of National Review in 1955.

But Buckley didn't just write a book and start a magazine. Conservatism as we know it today simply didn't exist then. There were disparate group of writers and thinkers, not all respectable. Buckley made order of the mess, and purged the nascent movement of its less-desirable elements. Anti-Semitism was of particular concern, as was conspiracy theorists. The John Birch Society, among others, found itself excommunicated from the movement.

Although the first edition of National Review is famous for Buckley's declaration that his magazine and movement would "athwart history, yelling Stop", to portray him as a reactionary or Luddite would be a gross caricature. If anything, conservatism became the movement of ideas, with liberalism trapped by old ways of thinking. Buckley was a famous early adopter of computers, and I remember reading him discuss something called "MCI Mail" in his 1992 book Windfall without having the foggiest notion of what he was talking about.

Buckley did not just write about politics, however. An avid sailboat racer and cruiser, the aforementioned Windfall, The End of the Affair was one of many about sailing. He both raced in the Chesapeake bay, and sailed several times across the Atlantic, and once across the Pacific. As someone who spent many weekends himself racing in that same bay, myself just outside of Annapolis, I can appreciate the experience of the challenge.

I read, I think, two of his Blackford Oakes spy novels, and they were interesting, but I've never been one much for fiction. Other than that, some of his novelized history books, such as The Redhunter: A Novel Based on the Life of Senator Joe McCarthy and Nuremberg: The Reckoning, struck me as being particularly noteworthy.

Of course there were times when I disagreed with him over this or that. It's hard to think of specifics, but there is never a situation where you agree with someone 100% (the Bible doesn't count). It's not the details that count, however, but the overall philosophy. And there he and I are almost perfectly in tune.

In the end there is nothing I can say that can do justice to the man. No doubt that while reading this brief tribute to him from his present perch on high he would notice my (undoubtably) many errors of grammar, punctuation, and style. The only real justice we can do is to carry forth his ideals.

William F Buckley Jr, 1925 - 2008, R.I.P.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 3, 2007

CPAC 2007 - Day 3

The morning rock star was Sean Hannity. Hannity was brilliant and in a way the best speaker of the entire CPAC. Of course, I'm sure the leftists still consider him a hatemonger, but aren't all of us on the right hatemongers to them?

I got there early, and of all the speakers I was closest for him. Given that he was the best it turned out just right.

As you might imagine, people in the crowd, including me I confess, started shouting "You're a Great American!" when he came on stage. he laughed and of course said it right back to us. "Three hours a day, that's all I ask" came quickly afterwards. The show was on.

Unlike Coulter, Hannity's humor was not simply a series of one-liners. He went easily from one topic to another, turning it up or down in perfect sync with the crowd's reactions.

As with every other speaker, he brought up Ronald Reagan as an inspiration. It's hard to overstate the influence of Reagan on modern conservatives, young and old alike. I can really think of no one with similar influence in the Democrat party. FDR is too long gone, and Clinton both too recent and too...unaccomplished.

One story he told was of an interview of big lib Paul Begalia that he did on his radio show. He presented a series of quotes about how bad a person Saddam Hussein was, about how he definately had WMD and needed to be takien out. Hannity told Begala that the quotes were from President Bush. "Do you think the president lied?" asked Hannity. "Definately yes!" replied Begalia. "Uh, you voted for John Kerry last time, didn't you?" asked Hannity. "Yes" from Begalia. Hannity shot back "Well, those quotes were really from him!" A furious Begala cried "You tricked me!"

LOL

He spoke of freedom and liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, and how women can now go to school and at least have a hope of equal opportunity. The world is a better place for these things.

Afterwards Hannity was outside in the hall, or rather in the doorway of a room adjacent tot he hall, surrounded I'm sure by tons of security. You can make him out at right under the camera. Obviously the crowd was going wild during all this.

Before Hannity went on stage there was a short debate on civil liberties and national security between Bob Barr and John Yoo. Barr is a former congressman, who now, among other things, serves on the board of directors of the NRA.

Despite that Yoo is a professor at UC Berkley, he was the one who defended the Patriot Act (he helped write it) and the way the Bush Administration has conducted itself. His main point was that we can have absolute civil rights or absolute security, but not both. Rather, he said, we need to strike a balance. The people we capture overseas are not entitled to Miranda warnings or necessarily lawyers and certainly not trials in civilian courts.

Barr said that he does not believe in a "balance" between civil rights and security. He said that we do not or should not engage in torture, and that much of the talk these days on the subject by defenders was word splitting.

While I ended up agreeing with Yoo more than Barr, anyone on the board of the NRA is a friend of mine.

I got more books signed today, one by the invaluable David Horowitz called Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom. As with Malkin the day before, he was gracious enough to pose for a photo. Fortunately my camera worked perfectly the first time around.

While at the Horowitz book signing I saw Phil Kiver, whom I'd met while countering the UPJ protest march this past January 27. He was signing his new book, a war journal of his time as an Army journalist in Iraq; 182 Days in Iraq, so of course I picked it up too.

I hadn't intended to listen to the panel on "The Future of Fusionism", but heard the last 15 minutes of their presentation when I came into the room early for the next group. Anyone who thinks that modern conservatism is monolithic, or that the CPAC organizers insisted on ideological conformity among speakers, didn't attend this panel. The only panelist I'd heard of was Donald Devine. It was sponsored by Reason magazine, which I've heard of but never read.

"Fusionism" is the attempted synthesis of libertarianism and traditionalism, though all of the panelists seemed to be pretty extreme libertarians from what I could tell. These guys were isolations in the old sense of the world; pull up the welcome mat and stay out of the affairs of the rest of the world. People could be dying right and left in some foreign country and the world going to hell and they wouldnt care, or at least do anything. I leard lines that may as well have come from Ted Kennedy; "the world hates us because of Iraq","Rick Santorum's defeat was the best thing that happened in the last election","opposition to gay marriage will destroy the GOP because all the young people are for it", and so on. Although they got their own panel, they're a fringe movement within conservatism and will thankfully never have much influence.

After the "fusionists" were done, the panel I really wanted to hear went on the dias. It was called Are we Safer Than on 9/10? National Security 5 Years Later. On the panel were Joel Mowbray, Ilan Berman, Chris Seiple, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, it being moderated by Kayne Robinson .

Seiple said that asking whether were safer or not was the wrong question. They are going to try and attack us again no matter what we do. The real question is "are we winning?" The way we know whether we're winning is 1) No attacks on the US, 2) We deny them the means of attack, and 3) We are able to expand freedom to the places where the terrorists come from. Guns are not enough, we need a "grand strategy" that consists of using the right words. Public opinion worldwide matters. We must also not be afraid to talk about faith and religion, because good theology defeats bad theology.

Berman talked about the necessity of missile defense. While groups like al Qaeda don't have missiles yet, we have seen what happened with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Further, terrorist states such as Iran are working on missiles and if we are not able to effect regime change one day they'll develop ones that can reach the US.

Gartenstein-Rosslisted successes and failures in the war. The successes were removing the Taliban, simply being engaged (unlike the 90s), domestic security measures, and understanding how the al Qaeda network operates (again unlike the 90s. On the failure side of the ledger he placed the Warziristan accords, problems in the Anbar province, an increase in Islamic radicalism, our military being overstretched, the new security measures being under attack domestically, and that many analyists and Westerners in general still don't know squat about Islam.

Mowbray spoke of the investigative work he did in uncovering the visas that the 9-11 terrorists used to gain entry into the United States. The visa forms were filled out incorrectly and should have been denied. The problem was with the State Department, which still does not see Saudi Arabia as a problem. He told of how shortly after the attacks they issued a press release in Saudi Arabia, in arabic, essentially telling Saudis "don't worry it'll be business as usual. To this day over 90% of all Saudis who apply for visas are approved. Career employees in the State Department see Israel as the root of all our problems. Unfortunately I wasn't surprised to hear this.

You may not know him, but former VA governor Jim Gilmore is runninging for president. Not a bad speaker, above average but not as good as Rudi, Mitt, or Newt. One thing he did which turned me off is that he attacked by name the other candidates as not being true conservatives. He was the only candidate that did this. He did it, I know, because he's virtually an unknown and wanted to generate some press. Nevertheless I found it distasteful.

Tom DeLay, of whom I'm not particularly fond, introducted David Horowitz, of whom I am. This panel was called No Retreat, No Surrender: Fighting the Shadow Party. Horowitz is a tough fighter as anyone who has followed his career knows. DeLay was hated by liberals mainly because he, too, was very effective in getting what he wanted.

Horowitz spoke about the difference between liberals and conservatives in their approach to government. Liberals go to Washington to change the world. Their causes are to them messianic missions. The left infiltrates institutions in order to undermine them. "I ought to know", he said, "because that's what I did when I was with the left." For the right politics is a necessity but isn't or shouldn't be a way of life. The "shadow party" consists of all of the leftist organizations who are all tied together in a kind of church. Horowitz has compiled a database of leftist groups and the information is available at his Discover The Network site.

Before Newt came on stage the CPAC organizers released the results of the straw polls that they'd taken during the conference. I recorded two of them.

Do you consider yourself a Ronald Reagan conservative or a George W Bush conservative?

Reagan conservative: 79%

Bush conservative 3%

(I'm not sure what happened to the rest, this is all from my notes)

Who is your first choice for president?

Romney 21%

Giuliani 17%

Brownback 15%

Gingrich 14%

McCain 12%

all others were below 5%

The last major speaker was Newt Gingrich. Unlike any other speaker, he entered from the back of the room and worked his way through the crowd to the front. It was a stroke of genius, as the crowd loved it and he shook hands the whole way. I was some distance away but standing on my chair could make him out.

His talk was typically Newt; intellectual and captivating. No matter what the subject, he has an absolute command of the material. He would slaughter any of the Democrats in a debate, especially intellectual lightweights like Barack Obama or John Edwards.

Given the distance and lighting, here's the best my little camera could do

Posted by Tom at 10:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

CPAC 2007 - Day 2

Day 2 at CPAC started off with a speech by presidential hopeful Rep Duncan Hunter (CA). Hunter spoke about the United States should be the Arsenal of Democracy, but more and more of our manufacturing base was going overseas. This puts our national security jeaporday, he said, because in a crisis we might not get the parts we need.

On the positive side Hunter is serious and presidential. On the downside he doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor. His demenor reminded me of of John Ashcroft. The one thing he said that I didn't agree with was that he would pardon the two border patrol agents who were recently convicted. My take is that one, they're guilty, and two he shouldn't make such promises during a campaign. Other than that I agreed with everything he said.

One of the most entertaining and yet informative speakers was Sen Jim Inhofe (OK). He devoted his entire speech to global warming and the Kyoto treaty. I don't watch much TV news so didn't know much about him, but was quite impressed. He showed sevaral clips of him on CNN sparing with Miles O'Brien; all of which made Inhofe look good, of course. In his talk he combined charts and facts with with clever witicisms all of which combined for a very good presentation.

I had only vaguely knew who he was but he seemed quite intelligent and personable, so I'll make a note and see if I can follow him his activities. He's going to be a leader in our fight to stop stupid "global warming" legislation. While he was speaking some people dropped a paper off at each table that detailed some of the points he was making. Actually, the happened with just about every panel. I was inundated with information packets and papers by the end of the third day.

Other presidential hopefulls giving speeches this day were Sen Sam Brownback (KS) and Rep Tom Tancredo (CO). Given all of the other things that were going on at CPAC, I decided to head out. I'm not happy with Brownback over his opposition to send more troops to Iraq, and although I know a lot of conservatives love him, my opinion of Tancredo is a bit different.

One of the best things about CPAC were the number of authors present who did book signings. Most of them also gave presentations or were part of panels too. One author I particularly wanted to meet was Michelle Malkin. So I headed down to the general exibit area where I picked up one of her latest works; Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

She was nice enough to pose for a photo for anyone who wanted one. When her assistant had trouble making my camera work at first, she offered the use of her camera and said she'd email me the photo. Very gracious (and thoughtful that she had one ready), I thought.

Speaking of unhinged, and I wasn't there when this happened, Malkin wrote on her blog that "Two punks from The Nation with a camera stopped by my book signing to ambush me about In Defense of Internment. Have they bothered to read the book? No. I look forward to their butchering of my comments and the predictable unhinged reaction. "

The second presidential hopeful who spoke on Day 2 was Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He started off well enough, telling a few funny stories about him and the Clintons. Good humor and personality, he hit all the right buttons during his speech. Obliquely refering to the Clinton's fixation on polls and focus groups, he said that we should not elect thermometers as leaders. Rather, he said, we should elect thermostats, people who could guide opinion.

He said he would sign Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes, which I do not think is a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm a low-tax kind of guy. I just don't think a pledge is the way to campaign and it sounds gimmicky.

His speech also went on for too long, turning into a laundry list at the end. One thing I'll give Duncan Hunter, he was short and to the point. Huckabee did well, I just wish he had ended sooner.

One of the most encouraging things about CPAC were the number of young people there. There were a lot of students from all around the country, and the bulk of the attendees seemed to be in their 20s and 30s.

Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association was there, and gave a very good presentation. As with Inhofe, he showed videos of him sparing with CNN news anchors, including one in which he (correctly as it turned out) accused them of faking a news story. A forceful speaker, he makes the NRA case well.

George Will introducted Rudy Giulianiwho drew the largest crowd of anyone so far at CPAC. The room was packed and they had to limit entrance to the hall, so some people had to watch in the hallway. Will reminded everyone that in the 60s and 70s it had become convention wisdom that New York City was "ungovernable". The place was going downhill fast, and Giuliani did the seemingly impossible; he reduced both crime and welfare roles.

In general Giuliani gave a very good speech. Oddly, he seemed to take a few minutes to get going, as if he started cold or hadn't psyched himself up beforehand. But after a few minutes he found his tempo and did very well from them on. He is an inspring leader, and someone I'd want in charge during a national security crisis.

Everyone knows that conservatives are suspicious of him on social issues, and he dealt with it the best way possible; with humor and charm. He said that that yes we don't agree on everything, but "I disagree with myself sometimes"

America has the right ideas, he said. Peace through strength.

He also said that we made a mistake in calling it the "War on Terror". It's not our war on them, but their war on us. The war will be over when they stop planning to come over here and kill us. Me: Rudy is dead right. And anyone who thinks that getting out of Iraq will change anything is deluded.

He gently criticized President Clinton for treating terrorism as a criminal matter, mentioning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. However, that's all hindsight.
"I don't blame people for not seeing it build(in the 90s)", he said. "But I do blame people for not seeing it after 9-11." Here here.

Democrats want to go back to a 90's way of dealing with terrorism, and it simply won't work.

He said that the way to fight terrorism domestically was to do it like he went after the Mafia when he was a prosecutor in NYC. "No one walked in our office to tell us about the Gambino crime family, we had to go out and look for them." He talked about using the "Al Capone" approach; once you know who the criminals are you prosecute them for spitting on that sidewalk if that's all you can get them on.

After Giuliani I headed out again for other seminars or book signings.

Unfortunately, getting back into the main room for the next two stars was not to be so easily. A victim of it's own success, a lot more people signed up for CPAC this year (6300) that the organizers had anticipated, so not everyone could fit into one room at once.

I got back in line but didn't make it in to see Mitt Romney. The scene outside the ballroom was an absolute madhouse

The line entrance to the main room was at the bottom right of these stairs, and the line went for some distance behind me. Due I'm sure to fire regulations, they could only let a certain number of people into the room, and they did it by counting seats. When someone left, or the ushers identified an empty seat, they let people in.

I was still in the hall when Mitt Romney gave his speech, but the organizers thoughtfully had a TV and speakers in the hall so I heard it perfectly fine. I'd never heard him before, so wasn't quite sure what to expect.

It turned out he did a very good job and I can see why he is a front runner. He combined knowledge of the issues with humor and charm. He spoke about efficient government, but concentrated most of the time on social issues, where he has been accused of being a flip-flopper (as it was, there were anti-Romney people handing out little flipflops, and a guy in a dolphin suit was there too).

Forceful and dynamic throughout, he started by bringing his wife on stage with him and ended with a rousing "God bless the United States of America!"

As with every other presidential candidate, he brought up Ronald Reagan as an inspiration. It's impossible to overestimate the influence he has on the conservative movement. He spent some of his time talking economics, and about his record in Massachusetts. He bashed Ted Kennedy, which as you might suspect went over well with the crowd.

Probably because he has been accused of flip-flopping on social issues, he spent a lot of his time talking about them. He talked about traditional values, the sanctity of life, and preserving marriage as being between one man and one women. He said that McCain-Feingold needs to be repealed, and that there must be no amnesty for illegal aliens.

Next was the rock star herself, Ann Coulter. I was let into the room and got to a seat seconds before she went on stage. The young people in the room went wild, as she is obviously a hero to the college kids

Ann is certainly quite a speaker. Most of her "speech" was a series of one-liners. Here are a few as I wrote them down (not going to be literally accurate)

Here is how liberals think:

Global warming is a moral issue. Not like, say abortion.

Nuclear power is bad. Unless the Iranians are pursuing it*

Al Gore has inspired me to save energy. Whenever I see him on TV, I turn it off

Obama is half white and half black. Bill Clinton is half white and half trash

Then Ann did what she does too often; she went too far

I was going to comment on John Edwards, but if you mention the word faggot you go to rehab

Unlike with her previous comments, this time the laughter was quite muted. I didn't like what she said, andMichelle Malkin didn't like it either. There's no excuse for saying things like that, and all she does is hand ammunition to the left.

Unlike any other speaker, she devoted at least half of her time to Q & A. Most of the questioners were college kids, and Coulter loved the give and take with the crowd. Her thinking is lightning fast, where with me I always think of the clever retort about 10 minutes too late. Like Malkin, she was ambused by the same punk from the leftist mag The Nation. She handled him perfectly, by making fun of him and not directly answering his question.

She also made a point of saying that she was not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage. It won't do you any good, Ann. To hard-core liberals the two are equal.

* I actually had a leftist tell me this once. Scroll through this post.

I did a quick check of a few leftie blogs and they're all over the Coulter comment. It's tempting to think that if we excluded Coulter from our ranks entirely we wouldn't have the problem of leftist idiots using her comments against us, but the reality is that if it wasn't her they'd go after someone else. Exorcise her from the conservative movement if you want but the left thinks that Newt Gingrich is a hatemonger so you just can't care what they think. The left demands perfection from conservatives, but frankly they've got so many nutcases in their ranks that it's laughable for them criticize us.

Myself, I'm in agreement with Malkin. Coulter isn't my type of conservative. She oughtn't be invited to CPAC next year.

Anyway...

After CPAC was done (I didn't attend the evening dinner) it was time to head over to Walter Reed for our weekly pro-troops rally. Although I was about dog-tired, it wasn't that far away and it's the least I can do for our troops. Fortunately it wasn't that windy so we got the MOAB up

Posted by Tom at 10:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 1, 2007

CPAC 2007 - Day 1

Just got back from CPAC and it was quite a long day. Because I live in the area I didn't get a hotel room, so am driving back and forth each day. And because traffic is murder it seemed that I spend half the day in the car. Fortunately I don't have to go into the city each day or I'd go insane. And usually when I do go it's in the evening or on weekends so I don't have to deal with it. Getting lost a few times didn't help either. Oh well.

This was my first time at a CPAC conference, and didn't quite realize what a huge gathering it is for conservatives. They've been doing this for 34 years now, and only recently have I been involved in politics to the point where I'm attending these things.

An amazing number of conservative commentators, pundits, and politicians will be there.

I ran into and briefly spoke with Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston of Hot Air(and all else that Michelle does), Melanie Morgan, "AJ" producer(I think) of the Laura Ingraham show, Mary Katharine Ham, and Robert Spencer. I saw in the hallways but did not speak with Jed Babbin and John Bolton I met a few local politicians as well. It was very cool.

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's people were there in force, handing out material everywhere, it seemed. Rudy Giuliani will be there tomorrow. Sam Brownback and Jim Gilchrist were there and I saw some of their people handing stuff out too. Everyone, that is, except for John McCain.... what is he thinking?

Perhaps the most interesting seminar today was the debate between Robert Spencer and Dinesh D'Souza on the nature of the Islamic terrorist threat. It was rather short, but was about the most spirited 20 minute exchange I've heard in a long time. Both of them made their cases well, and although the debate was fierce it was polite and each used humor to good effect (I took notes and in future will post them, it's late and I don't have time now).

If you're not familiar, the genesis of the debate can be found in books that each has written. Spencer is most famous for The Truth about Muhammed: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, and D'Souza for The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9-11.

As of this writing I have not read either book. My general take is that while both made very good points Spencer got the better of D'Souza.

Update - Video of the debate can viewed at Atlas Shrugs. It's well worth a visit. While you're at it, see this post on Spencer's Jihad Watch for his response to a D'Souza post on the debate.

After their debate I went down and picked up The Truth About Muhammed, getting it autographed by Spencer. While at the book signing I got My Year Inside Radical Islam by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who was signing his book alongside Spencer. Gartenstein-Ross was part of a panel on day 3, and did a pretty decent job I thought of summing up where we were in the war on jihadism(as I call it).

Another very good panel was called Strategies for a Bold Conservative Future , hosted by of the . On the panel were Phyllis Shlafly, Ken Blackwell, and Richard Viguerie. Here's a bad photo of Schlafly, about as good as I can get with my little pocket camera.

Schlafly is a fantastic speaker, and it is easy to see why she was such a pioneer of modern conservatism. Much of her talk today was about that hot button among conservatives; illegal immigration. Viguerie talked about how the GOP congress had betrayed us and how if they wanted our votes they needed to act like conservatives.

Viguerie is best known for his pioneering work in direct mail, which he used to great effect to mobilize conservatives in the 70s and 80s around certain causes. It has been described as "the Internet of the day". He said that this was the first time he could remember that the chairman of the GOP had not been invited to CPAC. The reason is obvious; conservatives are very upset with their party. He described the Republicans in congress as being anti-conservative in the way they governed. You can view his talk on YouTube.

Afterwards, I went down for her book signing, but because I waited too long I got their right as she was leaving. Fortunately they had some pre-signed books, so I picked up The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.

Another interesting panel was Social Issues and the Conservative Movement. Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America (the anti-NOW) compared the situation today with that of William Wilberforce two hundred years ago. We on the right are accused of "imposing our values" on others, but so was he when he started his anti-slavery crusade. There may be "two Americas", she said, but the divide is not economic but moral. I would certainly agree with that.

Ben Shapiro talked about the concept of "defining deviancy down" that Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about many years ago. The liberal call for "toleration" simply leads to one thing after another. it used to be that we instinctively knew that porn was bad for you, for example. Now we need some social scientist with a fancy degree to spelll it out in a paper before people will believe it. John Stuart Mill said that if it doesn't harm you it's ok. No; we're not moral relativists. Liberals invent new "rights" all the time. We on the right understand that rights come from the creator. All sentiments I can agree with.

Senator Mitch McConnell gave a great speech on conservative values. He stressed party unity but also that we needed a clear and coherent message. He led the fight against McCain's campaign finance reform and promised not to give up until it was overturned.

McConnell slammed the Democrats for opposing the new strategy in Iraq. He said that they were trying a "goldilocks approach"; find something that is hot enough for the anti-war base, but cold enough for the moderates. Pretty accurate, I thought.

He also pointed out that if we on the right are going to make a difference, we need clarity and unity of purpose. We must offer a real alternative, and not just criticize.

In addition to the panels there was a large exhibit area with dozens of conservative groups. NRARadio was there along with "blogger row" (where I said hi to Mary Katharine Ham). At right Ginny Simone and Cam Edwards broadcast the news NRA style

Lastly for tonight, here is a (bad) photo of Michelle Malkin accepting an award from Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media (my little camera just doesn't do well inside at range. I touched it up a bit but it still doesn't do her justice)

I attended more panels and saw more people but it's late and tomorrow will be even longer. At some point next week I'll expand this post with more about what everyone said.

Posted by Tom at 10:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 5, 2006

A Cease-Fire in the Offing?

The United States and France are working towards drafting a resolution which they believe will pass the UN Security Council. Haaretz has excerpts

The Security Council...

- Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, :

- Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

- Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory ... ;

- Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

... the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

- deployment of an international force in Lebanon ... ;

- establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

- elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the
consent of its government ... ;

- Requests UNIFIL (the UN Interim Force in Lebanon), upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

There's more, but these are the essentials. The Jersulalem Post has the full text of the proposed resolution.

These terms are all fine and good, but as Rich Lowry points out, it will "be meaningless if Hezbollah doesn't accept the ceasefire, which seems quite possible." Lowry doesn't say why, but I would think that they will only accept the cease-fire if they believe that the attempt to disarm them and keep them disarmed will not be serious.

Beyond that, words on paper are all very fine, but as we saw in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Security Council was very good at passing resolutions, but very poor at enforcing them. Why should Syria and Iran stop arming Hezbollah? Anyone who suggests that a package of economic and other incentives will work wins the dunce-of-the-day award. The reason why UNIFIL, which has been in southern Lebanon since 1978, hasn't done anything is that one, the nations donating troops to that effort don't want any of their soldiers killed, two they see peacekeeping as a money-making operation, and three, many outright sympathize with Hezbollah.

And why should Iran and Syria cease arming Hezbollah? Both know, or think, that the chance of being attacked by the US is nil. They're not interested in economic incentives. Syria will probably that they'll stop arms shipments, but will secretly begin to do so. Israel and the US will detect some of the shipments, the usual suspects will shake their heads and tut-tut that the shipments should stop, but that will be it. Then, once things have calmed down for awhile, Hezbollah will resume it's attacks on Israel and we'll be right back where we started.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad says that the solution is to destroy Israel.

Posted by Tom at 2:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 10, 2006

Are You a "Crunchy Con"?

National Review Contributing Editor Rod Dreher has written a book called Crunchy Cons in which he attempts to describe what he believes to be a type of conservative that has not been identified elsewhere. I haven't read the book, but it is reviewed in the March 13th print issue of the magazine. If you have a digital subscription you can read the review here, otherwise you'll have to take my word for what's in the review.

However, over at National Review there is a Crunchy Con blog, with many of the editors weighing in. Check it out for more detail on what this is all about.

Every certain number of years traditional ideas of what it means to be a conservative and liberal undergo a change, or at least modification. Dreher believes that in the past several years a new type of conservative has emerged, one that he calls a "crunchy conservative", or "crunchy con" for short.

This is not to say that either group is ever monolithic. Greenpeace members and Teamsters both call themselves liberals, but while the former would fight to keep loggers from cutting down forests to save the Spotted Owl, the latter would solve the problem with a 12 guage and a pocketfull of birdshot.

Likewise with conservatives. Economic and social conservatives may vote for the same candidate, but will do so for different reasons.

Dreher believes that he has identified several attributes of this new type of conservative that he calls a Crunchy Con. Using the aforementioned book review, I am going to go through these attributes and find out whether I am a Crunchy Con or not.

Non-Materialistic

Traditional conservatives, Dreher says, worship the market, and by extension, consumerism. The "endless acquisition of stuff" seems to be the goal of all too many middle and upper-middle class people.

Dreher has no problem with a free market economy. Nor with buying things. It is more the attitude of "buy buy buy more more more", I think, than anything else, that he distains.

Tom - In this respect I agree with Dreher. My TV is 15 years old, and I have no desire to buy a high-definition set. I know and hear about people who think nothing of spending 20k on a home entertainment center, complete with mini-theater seating, and then of course invite their friends over who are all supposed to "oh and ah" over it all. Not me.

What's perhaps interesting about this is that I make my living doing market research in the consumer electronics field. My view is that just because it interests me on an intellectual level doesn't mean I want to run out and buy it all.

Distain for Shopping Malls and Tract Housing

Since crunchy cons do not care for unbridled consumerism, it follows that they don't care much for shopping malls.

Likewise, they don't want to live in a house that is the same or similar to the ones up and down the block from it. In fact, they don't want to live on blocks in surburbia at all.

Dreher says that crunchy cons prefer a "bungalow" arrangement, something cozy on a piece of land somewhat separated from one's neighbors. Gardens and other simple structures around the house are desired.

Tom - Well...I'm half and half here. Ok, less than half. I confess that I like shopping malls. I like wandering around in them, especially at Christmastime (crazy, I know).

I live in a traditional surburban townhouse, and probably will for some time. But I would definately prefer the "bungalow" in a woody area that Dreher describes. Economics and driving distance to work prevent this from becoming a reality.

Organic, Natural, Food

Crunchy cons hate McDonalds and love fresh organic foods.

Tom - I'm about 3/4 in here. A certified health and fitness nut, I eat more than my share of fresh fruit and vegetables (to the occasional amusememt of my coworkers). I also "must" go to the gym at least twice a week. However, I couldn't care less whether my food is grown organically or not. Call me cheap if you want but the organic stuff just costs too much.

I'm not much for fast food places either. Not to worry, however, I'm not the type of person who turns his nose up at rich food when I'm at at someone elses house. I'll eat whatever is served.

More Environmentalism

Crunchy cons are definately more concerned with the environment that most traditional conservatives. However, theirs is not the "people are evil to mother earth" of the Greenpeace types. Theirs is rather more a stewardship, the idea that we have been given dominion of the earth, and thus have an obligation to take care if it.

Tom - I am in sympathy here with the Crunchy cons. I don't like to see a forest chopped down to make way for yet another subdivision, but I realize that the land where my house sits was a woods less than twenty years ago. I distain the type of conservative who couldn't care less about the woods, steams and animals who inhabit them, and who think everything should be paved over in an endless stream of "development". But as with Dreher's crunchy cons, my attitude is also quite different than leftie environmentalists. I'm a fisherman and support hunting and gun rights 100%. If asked I tell people I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist.

Family over Prosperity

Crunchy cons will live in a smaller house and drive used cars if that is what it takes to maintain a stay-at-home mom. Giving up luxuries is vital to good child rearing, they believe.

Tom - I am single so won't comment much here. Suffice it to say that this is how I was raised, and my sister and sister-in-law gave up excellent careers so they could stay at home with their children.

Home Schooling

"Toss out the TV and homeschool the children", he says. Again, Dreher says that crunchy cons are willing to make economic sacrifices to make this happen. Their concern with the public schools is not the academics but with their moral decay.

He also has little patience for the "socialization" argument, that anti-home schoolers make; "look at the values predominating in youth culture today; is that really working for us?" Dreher retorts.

Tom - Again, without any children I cannot speak about myself. However, I will note that last summer I went on a mission trip to Scotland with maybe 30 people from my church, over half of whom were high-schoolers. During the trip I discovered that many were homeschooled. I know that this is anecdotal evidence, but I will tell you that they were as socialized as anyone else. In other words, they were perfectly normal teenagers.

Orthodox Religious Beliefs

There's not much here in the review, just that although faith is not required, most crunchy cons are religious, and tend to be orthodox.

Tom - I go to an independent evangelical church. No leftie mainstream protestant stuff for me.

Everything Else

The review doesn't mention traditional issues like abortion, foreign policy, or taxes. I assume that since Dreher is in tune with the rest of the staff at National Review at these issues, crunchy cons are too. But that may not be so, and you'll have to buy the book to find out.

So What You, Tom?

I'm about half in the cruncy con camp, but definately not all of the way.

Now it's your turn, are you a "crunchy con" or not?

Posted by Tom at 7:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack