Pragmatism vs. Ideology

A must-read at NRO.

Big 3 Bankruptcy Will Hurt

But not nearly as much as some have claimed.

Hat tip:  The Corner

Piss off Al Qaeda

Vote for McCain.

Line for the McCain Campaign

Senator McCain voted against a bill funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because it contained a timeline which would have hamstrung our troops and fatally undermined our efforts in Iraq.  Senator Obama voted against a bill funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because it didn't contain this provision.

Another Proposal I Could Get Behind

This one from House Republicans.

Hat tip:  The Corner

An Idea I Can Get Behind

At least if I understand it correctly.

Hat tip:  TCS Daily

Well, what's the chance of McCain winning this election?

My grandmother just asked me this question. My thoughts below.

Right now, if McCain's going to have a chance, the economy needs to stabilize a bit, and he needs to develop a more coherent message on the economy. Obama sounds good on the economy until you stop and think about what he says. Trouble is, McCain is Obama-lite when it comes to
the current financial mess, at least rhetorically. Both view it as a market failure caused by the greed of Wall Street fat-cats when there is a convincing case to be made that the failure is a result of government intervention and regulation of the housing market. There is also a compelling case to be made that Obama bears at least partial responsibility for causing the housing mess. McCain isn't making either case, and he isn't making a compelling case for his other economic policies. McCain is great on foreign policy, national security, love of country and duty, but he seems a fish out of water discussing economic issues. He's a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, with all the regulatory baggage that brings, and if he can't bring himself to stand up for the free market and show how government is at the root of our current economic problems, he comes across as a lesser Obama. And if he comes across as a lesser Obama, there's no reason for people to vote for him.

Ultimately, there are quite a few issues on which McCain can effectively and favorably contrast himself with Obama. Unfortunately, the economy hasn't been one of them. What McCain needs to do is root the crisis in the violation of the people's trust by government officials and quasi-government officials like Jim Johnson and Frnaklin Raines. McCain needs to unleash his reformist, maverick streak on the government because doing so would actually begin to address the underlying crisis, and because it undermines Obama's call for further regulation of financial markets. However, he only gets space to make this case once the current crisis abates somewhat. Hopefully, things will clear up within the next week or so, giving McCain three weeks to make his case, starting at the next presidential debate, where he should hit Obama hard both on his calls for further regulation of Wall Street and his involvement with ACORN as they looked to intimidate banks into giving home loans to people with bad credit.

Man, I wish Romney were on the ticket right about now. In fact, Romney-Bolton '08 sounds really goods to me right about now.*

*Not that they'd have much of a chance of winning.

It's All Obama's Fault

Well not all, but Barack Obama certainly bears some responsibility for the current financial mess.

Hat tip:  The Corner

Cars

I never did this until I saw this.

Hat tip:  Art & Letters Daily

The Libertarian Alternative

Jerry Bowyer on how to deal with the latest Wall Street crisis.

How We Got Here

A must-see on how this financial mess unfolded.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Hat-tip: Drudge

Must-Read on How to Solve the Economic Crisis

Newt Gingrich offers his solutions.

Give It a Rest, Fellas.

It certainly goes without saying that if Republicans had controlled both houses of the Michigan legislature, those absurd tax increases would not have passed last October. It also goes without saying that the Democrat Speaker of the House, Andy Dillon, played an instrumental role in getting the tax increases passed, but they still could not have done it without the capitulation of Senate Republicans on the issue.

On top of this, Dillon is up for reelection this November. Therefore, it makes no sense to try to recall him in the November elections. If his actions in this matter are that unpopular, he should be beatable in November. And if he isn't beatable, it is highly unlikely the recall will succeed.

Furthermore, what is gained by it? It won't prevent Dillon's participation in the budget process for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins in early October. If Dillon loses his bid for reelection, he'll be out by January, and if he somehow wins his bid for reelection but loses the recall election, he'll have gotten a two month vacation, assuming the legislature is even in session during November and December.

This recall effort serves only to stick a finger in Dillon's eye and won't have any practical impact on legislation or on the makeup of the Michigan House of Representatives. Dillon's up for reelection in two months. If you want him out, vote for his opponent, don't resort to cheap stunts.

Line I'd Like to Hear from Huckabee

"Sarah Palin took up the burden of raising a child born with Down's Syndrome. Barack Obama voted to let such children be left to die in utility closets."

Mitt's Proposal for Government Regulation

Take a weed-whacker to it. Palin should do him one better and propose a chainsaw.

Bush Was Right

In the summer of 2001, there was a dispute over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Those in favor of it argued that ESCR held the promise to cure countless diseases and injuries from Alzheimer's to quadriplegia. Those opposed to it argued that it should be opposed as a matter of principle because it was (and is) necessary to destroy a human being to obtain the stem cells; that any cures from ESCR were years if not decades away; and that research into adult stem cells showed more promise. Indeed, treatments using adult stem cells are already being done.

Now comes news that regular adult cells can be reprogrammed from one type of cell into another. This means that the advantage supposedly inherent to working with embryonic stem cells, that they can become any type of cell in the body, is nullified. Indeed, this advantage was nullified when it was found that adult stem cells could be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. These methods of reprogamming give adult stem cell research and cellular therapies using normal adult cells the same potential as embryonic stem cells without having to destroy human embryos and without the problem of controlling what sort of cell the embryonic stem cell will become (the latter problem being the major reason no potentially viable treatments have emerged through ESCR).

All of this goes to show both the wisdom of President Bush's decision to accept federal funding of ESCR for existing stem cell lines only.* The field of medical research operates in the market, and actors in the market respond to incentives. Cures utilizing ESCR were seen as being far off, and for them to be a worthwhile investment would have required large federal subsidies.** By limiting the scope of federal funding, President Bush created an incentive for investors to look into other forms of research that offered a better chance of short-to-medium run return on investment such as adult stem cell research (pushing lots of federal money that way as well). These forms of research also avoided the moral dilemma of destroying embryos. Now this research is bearing fruit, and the need for obtaining stem cells by destroying embryos and employing human cloning to obtain usable stem cells is on the verge of being obviated if it hasn't been already.

Can there be any doubt that, if the president had given in to the pressure and accepted unrestricted federal funding for ESCR, none of this would have happened? With massive federal subsidies going to the politically popular ESCR, would researchers have bothered to try anything else? Plenty of scientists back the popular line on global warming because it gets them government funding. Why take a chance on adult stem cells or this new cellular reprogramming method if ESCR gives you guaranteed money if you only promise that cures for all sorts of diseases are right around the corner?

Given the politics at the time, President Bush made as morally right a decision as he could, and the fruit of research in fields in competition with ESCR over the intervening years have born fruit. In short, Bush got this one right.

*In theory, it would have been best for him to deny federal funding altogether, but it was seen as being a politically untenable position.

**Otherwise, people scientists, companies, and universities engaged in ESCR would have been able to find private investors to fund their research.

Hat tip: The Corner

Is New York in Play

Not yet, but if this trend continues, Obama's toast.

Hat tip: The Corner

Obama May not Be a Corrupt Washington Politician

But he may well be a corrupt Chicago politician.

Obama-Ayers More than Meets the Eye

Obama-Ayers, collaborators in disguise. For months Obama has been attempting to minimize his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, Stanley Kurtz is being denied access to publicly available documents that could reveal the extent of Obama's connections to both the far left and Chicago's notoriously corrupt political machine.

Money quote:

Let me make one broad point today. Notice that the critical evaluation of Woods Fund grant programs I discuss in "Senator Stealth," my piece in the current issue of National Review, occurred in 1995. That was the same year the Chicago Annenberg Challenge began, with Obama as board chairman, and the same year Obama launched his first campaign for State Senate, at a political coming out party at the home of Ayers and Dohrn, among other venues. In 1995, in other words, Obama moved to increase his influence over two local foundations, each of which would disburse money to his radical political-organizer friends, and even to his future campaign ground troops. This alone raises many interesting and important questions, some of which I pursue in "Senator Stealth." But I note that, if names were to be purged from the Chicago Annenberg Collection records, it could inhibit my ability to follow critical leads on this, and other, aspects of this story.

A tree is known by its fruit, and Obama's fruit has consistently been of a most radical sort (and not in the Bill and Ted sense). Now Obama is trying to cover his tracks, and it appears some of his former political allies are only too eager to help.

Veep Speculation

Needless to say, there's been a host of speculation as to who Barack Obama will name as his running mate. Currently, the conventional wisdom is that he will name his running mate sometime this week as the Democratic Convention is next week, and Obama will want to get the maximum bounce from his selection.

However, I think Obama may do something unexpected: Let the delgates decide who his running mate will be. Obama currently faces the difficulty that he has no executive experience and little foreign policy experience, and no pick he can make, with the possible exception of Evan Bayh, who was governor of Indiana before becoming its senator, can cover both of those weaknesses. Complicating matters further, he has promised Hillary Clinton a roll call vote which will only serve to highlight her strength in the party and play up the deep, if frivolous, divisions currently plaguing the Democrat party.

Allowing the delegates to vote on a vice presidential candidate blunts this challenge by Clinton. If she does nothing and allows the vote to play out, her power base will undoubtedly be torn between nominating her for the vice presidency and holding out to demontrate their power in the symbolic roll call vote, and Clinton's power is diminished. If Clinton urges her supporters to vote for her, she is effectively submitting herself to Obama's leadership of the party, and the roll call vote becomes meaningless. If she urges her supporters to hold out for the roll call vote, she will be seen as deliberately dividing the party for her own benefit and runs the risk of marginalizing herself.

Furthermore, giving the delgates a vote on his running mate shows his attentiveness to the will of the party and will likely unify the party behind him. It will also help Obama market himself as a different type of politician even as that claim is becoming more and more laughable.

That's not to say there aren't risks involved. The delegates may nominate someone who accentuates Obama's far left credentials. Clinton may win the vice presidential nomination, which introduces whole new levels of uncertainty and the potential for Clinton to cause all kinds of trouble. Or it could bring her to heel. Or tensions between the Obamas and Clintons could throw the whole campaign into dysfunction. But that may be the best Obama can hope for. By granting Clinton the roll call vote, he has allowed a massive display of disunity to go forward at a time when the party's unity is supposed to be maximized, and the only way to fix the problem may be to give Clinton a shot at the consolation prize.

Obama Supports Negligent Infanticide

At least as a matter of law.

The Fundamental Absurdity of Politics

So, Democrats now claim that John McCain is likening Barack Obama to the anti-Christ.

Needless to say, that's ridiculous. If the McCain campaign wanted to compare Obama to the anti-Christ, they'd have just worn the shirt.

Go Tom, Go!

Tom Coburn rules.

Hat tip: Real Clear Politics

What Multiculturalism Hath Wrought

A must watch video with more thoughts from Roger Kimball.

Just Because

Want to live forever? This guy has the key.

Imperialism Without an Empire

Both former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson do an excellent job of eviscerating Barack Obama's incredibly vacuous Berlin speech. But as moronic as Obama's "one world" rhetoric may be, it still offers an insight into the thought of Barack Obama and reveals him to be very European in his thinking.

The particular from the speech line Bolton and Ferguson analyze is "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." Yes it's a dumb line, but what makes it interesting is that the aspiration expressed is no different from the aspirations of empires. From the Assyrians to the Persians to the Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Aztecs, British, French, Germans, Japanese, and communists, the ultimate aim of an empire is to control the world, to secure their interests for all time by subjecting the world to their power. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by military conquest.

Then World War I and World War II devastated Europe and much of the rest of the world, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the dominant powers in the world. The lesson the Europeans took from the the World Wars was that militaristic imperialism was the cause of the wars and that multilateral cooperations was needed to restrain the these destructive ambitions. At the same time, Western European powers, bowing to political pressure based on the evils of imperialism, divested themselves of their colonies abroad (although the remains of the British Empire are a commonwealth with the Queen as their sovereign).* Instead of building empires through military might, Western Europe looked to political integration under the United States' military umbrella to create an empire founded not on conquest, but on cooperative treaties and institutions (e.g. the Euro, the European Commission, etc.). Given Europe's history in the twentieth century, this wasn't a bad idea, even if the result has been something of a monstrosity, but I digress.

Given that Obama apparently doesn't plan to launch massive wars of conquest, the only realistic alternative to achieving his vision of one world standing together would be something along the lines of EU model where nations cede their sovereignty to supra-national institutions. In other words, Obama is willing to cede the sovereignty of the United States (or some measure of it) in exchange for a united world. If Obama is serious about this one world nonsense, a President Obama would be bad for United States' sovereignty.

*Of course, the Soviets often supported this political pressure surreptitiously so as to make these newly independent states dependent on them.

Drawing Contrasts

John McCain famously said that he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Based on Obama's claims that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the surge, McCain should point out that Obama would rather lose a war rather than lose an election.

Obama Is Not Mocked

Except when he is.

Hat tip: Drudge

Exploiting Government Reform to Seize Power

There is a proposal likely to be on the Michigan ballot in the fall that would radically restructure the state government; cut many elective positions; cut pay for government figures; eliminate fifty state boards and commissions; even eliminate two departments of the state government, among other things. But these reforms, of which many would be laudable on their own, are not simply reform for the sake of improving Michigan's government.

We now know what many have long suspected: The initiative is an attempt by the Democrats to take control of all three branches of Michigan's government by sleight of hand, having failed to do so through the more conventional method of winning elections. The proposal is structured in such a way that the overwhelming number of positions cut are currently held by Republicans, especially in the Judiciary. Furthermore, adding ten seats to the lower courts (to be filled by Granholm appointees), while eliminating two Supreme Court seats and eight Appeals' Court seats will give the Democrats a net gain of sixteen judgeships in the state courts. It is less clear what the effects of eliminating legislative seats would be, but it certainly stands to reason the Democrats would not have included the cutbacks in the proposal if they did not believe they would come out ahead in the deal.

There are some good ideas in the proposal (at least in principle), but the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation on the proposal makes clear that the good ideas mask a dangerous intent: to alter the political structure of the Michigan political system so as to shield them from the will of the people and entrench themselves in power for years to come, no matter how far they run the state into the ground.

If Being a Global Warming Skeptic Is Equivalent to being a Holocaust Denier. . .

Does this mean the Holocaust didn't happen? Ahmadinejad will be thrilled.

Hat tip: Planet Gore

For the record: The comparison between global warming skeptics and Holocaust deniers has been made by "serious" people.

News Flash

Men and women are different.

Dude, Give the Guy a Break

Drudge has posted a story claiming that Barack Obama has on occasion smoked cigarettes after quitting. How is this newsworthy? The man has been running for president for almost a year and a half and has been engaged in one of the most hotly contested presidential primary campaigns ever. He has been on the road constantly, under constant stress, maintaining a grueling schedule. Is it that unbelievable that under these conditions he might feel and possibly succumb to the urge to have a cigarette? Is it that unconscionable? There are plenty of legitimate issues to raise concerning Obama without getting into whether he occasionally engages in a legal, if socially looked-down-upon, activity.

I may not agree with him on much of anything, but at the end of the day I'd be more than happy to kick back and light one up with Barack Obama.

The Next Great Feminist Struggle

The right to kill the infidel.

HT: The Corner

Wright Was Right

In distancing himself from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was merely doing what he had to do as a politician.

Will He or Won't He?

The Jerusalem Post has an article reporting the Bush administration's denial of a report that the United States will attack Iran's nuclear program before President Bush leaves office in January. This story, and the subsequent denial of its veracity, is just the latest in a long line of stories that the President will not leave the problem of Iran's program to his successor. For my part, I suspect that had it not been for our setbacks in securing and stabilizing Iraq, the issue would have been long on its way to resolution, but Iran's disruptive activities in Iraq have forced the United States to concentrate on using its military resources to fight al Qaeda and the Shiite militias, both backed by Iran. Now, as time runs out for President Bush, he is faced with a question, does he take action in the waning months of his presidency, or does he let the diplomatic process continue to play out and hand the problem to his successor?

In an ideal world, I think the president would have liked to have dealt with Iran by the end of his second term, but now he doesn't believe the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan leave him in a position to take action without potentially compromising the gains in Iraq, and making the situation worse in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, all countries where Iran is highly active in undermining security. Thus, he would like to wait as long as he can before taking action in the hope that the situation on the ground will improve. Unfortunately, the only place where things are likely to improve in the remaining months of the Bush presidency is Iraq, where the al Qaeda in Iraq is nearly defeated. This means that an attack on Iran is likely to lead to a regional war launched by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and ultimately involving Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Egypt. That is the meaning of Hamas' activity in Gaza and Hezbollah's brief uprising in Lebanon. It is also why the United States and Israel are propping up Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank, not because Fatah is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, what will happen? This depends on the political developments in Israel and the United States. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert falls, he is likely to be replaced by the hawkish Binjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu will likely pursue a much more aggressive policy in dealing with Hamas and will be unafraid to retaliate viciously to any attack on Israel by Hezbollah, where Olmert has proved weak and feckless.

The other key event will be the presidential elections in the United States this fall. President Bush trusts Senator John McCain's instincts on issues of national defense, and if McCain is elected, Bush would most likely be comfortable handing the problem over to him. The same cannot be said for Senator Barack Obama, as the dust-up over who wants to appease whom illustrates. Bush believes Obama's plans for dealing with Iran are dangerously naive, and should Obama win the election in November, Bush would be unlikely to trust him with the task of eliminating Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, he would almost certainly take action to resolve the issue, or at least retard Iran's progress enough to push the final confrontation either past the end of an Obama presidency or far enough down the road for Obama to be disabused of his supreme belief in his ability to persuade nations to act contrary to what they perceive to be their own self-interest by dint of his winning personality.

Liking McCain in Spite of Myself

I still have serious reservations about John McCain as president, but things seem to keep happening that make me like him more and more.

Hat tip: Drudge

More on Obama's Speech

Mark Goldblatt defends Obama, while Christopher Hitchens takes issue.* Meanwhile, Doug Kmiec, "a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents," endorses* Obama. I come down somewhere between Goldblatt and Hitchens, in large part because I think Goldblatt is wrong to dismiss Obama's policy prescriptions as "Obama being Obama", but right to be understanding toward Obama's refusal to disavow Wright (though Hitchens does make some compelling points).

If Obama is correct that federal education spending, economic protectionism, universal health care, and withdrawal from Iraq are the keys to racial reconciliation, then opposition to these policies are racist (unless there is some non-racist reason to oppose racial reconciliation that I'm missing). It follows from this that conservatives who want decreased government involvement in education and health care, support free trade, and believe it to be in the national interest to maintain our presence in Iraq are racists.

This is patently absurd. What's more, I don't think Obama believes this. But it does indicate, again, the discrepancy between Obama's rhetoric and his politics. Obama declares time and again that he wants to transcend our differences, to transcend not only race, but fundamental political and philosophical divisions as well, but his policies are of a decidedly left-wing bent. As I've said before, something has to give. Obama doesn't seem to think so:

"What I'm certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there's no doubt the pendulum is swinging."

It is certainly true that the Republicans dropped the ball when they were in power on a whole host of issues, and they deserved to lose in 2006. It does not follow from this that conservatives are looking to abandon their belief in limited government and muscular foreign policy just because the Bush administration and Republican Congress were inept at implementing these conservative principles. Kmiec himself makes this point when he points out that his endorsement of Obama does not imply an abandonment of his conservative principles. He has made the bet that Obama's rhetoric will trump his policy proposals (except on the war in Iraq, where Kmiec and Obama are in agreement). I hope he's right, but I refuse to abandon my principles for Obama's dreams, no matter how audaciously he may hope otherwise.

*Hat tip: The Corner
**Hat tip: Drudge

No Iran-al Qaeda Links Either

That whole Sunni-Shia split kind of precludes that. Except that it's a load of bunk. Groups with major differences have historically worked together to when both sides believe it will be to their benefit. Think of Cardinal Richelieu siding with Protestant forces against the Holy Roman Empire to increase the power of France, or the United States and Great Britain making common cause with the Soviet menace to defeat the National Socialists. More relevantly, think of the Ayatollah Khomeini working accepting the aid of French radicals opposed to the Shah of Iran before stabbing them in the back. While each side will try to turn the outcome of events to its own advantage, there is no reason to believe that their sectarian differences will prevent them pursuing a common goal. Indeed, the evidence indicates the exact opposite.

Paging Jack Lynch

You might want to exploit this in your Congressional run. Then again, it might go over pretty well in the Ann Arbor area.

Obama's Speech

In light of recent events, Senator Barack Obama has given a speech explaining his views on racial issues, specifically as they relate to his firebrand of a pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As far as I'm concerned, he hit all of the right notes on Wright, condemning what Wright said without throwing him under the bus, and offering a human, if not exactly logically coherent, explanation for some of the things said and done by Wright. As long as Obama told the truth about his relationship with Wright and what he did and didn't hear Wright say. the issue is settled for me.

Obama then goes on to expand on what he thinks has to be done to bring about racial reconciliation, including making some points that conservatives have been making for years, such as blacks "taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to
despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny." But this is also where Obama's speech starts to get worrisome. Just prior to this he had stated that

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

He immediately goes on to say that "embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change." Assuming for a minute that this is true (it isn't), is simply believing society can change enough, or does someone actually have to do something to bring this change about? If so, who is that someone? Because the speech is political above all else, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the responsibility for changing society falls to the state, particularly the federal government. And what ought the federal government do to bring about this momentous change in society? Obama sets down the outlines of his program to bring about racial reconciliation, and it looks remarkable like embracing the typical progressive slate of programs.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Obama continues

In this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas
for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

So, according to Obama, racial reconciliation must be grounded in massive increases in federal education spending; economic protectionism (leaving the whole NAFTA issue aside for the moment); government-provided health care; and fighting the perennial bogeyman, Washington special interests. So, apparently the key to reconciliation is recognizing that our social problems stem from the fact that the government isn't taking good enough care of us. Implicit in Obama's narrative is the idea that all social tension stems from economic hardship. More to the point, Obama seems to believe that national unity requires that the nation rally around a program of massive government action for the common good, defined in strictly economic terms and grounded in socialist principles.

Never mind the question of whether Obama's policy proposals would be efficacious if enacted, this is yet another example of how Obama's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his politics. He proclaims himself a transcendent figure capable of bridging the divisions in American society, but for large segments of the population, embracing his politics on social, economic, and national security issues means abandoning their own principles. Obama is not coming to meet them by offering some new political synthesis that eliminates the contradictions between the principles of the left and right, he is demanding that they bridge the divide by sacrificing their principles in the name of unity. Obama's nods to conservatism are in areas where no policy implications can be drawn, while an examination of the actual positions he has taken in the Senate show him to be to the left of all other Senators.

Obama's politics can be summed up by this line from his speech:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Simply put, Obama seems to be preaching statolatry, the worship of the state and the belief in its salvific powers. I say seems because it is possible to read just about any position you want into what he's saying, including libertarianism, but a perusal of his policy proposals gives the impression that the libertarian reading of Obama's speech is unlikely to be correct. Instead, he believes in the power of government to alleviate the human condition and bring about a peaceful and harmonious society. The problem with this is not that government has no role to play, but that the role Obama would assign it would have an infantilizing effect on the population. When people become dependent upon the government for their well-being, especially in the realm of providing for their material needs, they cease to view themselves as moral actors because they lose sight of what was their major obligation: providing for themselves and their families. Obama recognizes this when he speaks of "A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and
frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family,
contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare
policies for many years may have worsened." But he misses the point. When the state guarantees you a certain standard of living, you have no incentive to work for it. You only have incentive to work if you want your standard of living to be higher than the one provided by the government and want it badly enough that you're willing to go out and work for it. If the government is paying you enough to get by, a life of leisure looks pretty good, and idle hands do the devil's work.

But instead of getting government out of the way, Obama wants more of it, and this is largely anathema to conservatives (which is one reason why Mike Huckabee didn't gain much traction outside his evangelical base and John McCain has work to do to shore up his base). It is still the height of naivete to assume conservatives will abandon their principles for the sake of political unity when their raisson d'etre is to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"

Once Again, Class

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

A relatively weaker dollar is favorable to domestic industry because it makes domestically produced goods cheaper both at home and abroad, while making imported goods more expensive. Thus, in a time where American industry is struggling to compete with new industries in places like India and China, it makes sense to have a slightly weaker currency. But this is getting ridiculous. With the prices of oil and other commodities going through the roof as a result of the weak dollar, now being made weaker by the Federal Reserve's latest injection of liquidity into the market (though it may not be as bad as I think), I have to agree with Larry Kudlow: "It's time to resurrect King Dollar."

Oh, So That's What He Was Doing

"This isn't what it looks like. We were just having a naked prayer time."

via Drudge

Will Cuba Become the New China?

Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, is showing signs that he is willing to open up Cuba's economy to her people. Obviously, you can't draw any firm conclusions from one example, but this could be an indication that Raul will pursue policies similar to those of China: statist economic policies, with a reasonable amount of economic freedom (unless the State feels your resources are better used elsewhere), combined with strong repression of personal liberties.

You Can Dress Up Like a Sultan in Your Onion-Head Hat

This video response to will.i.am's "We Are the Ones" video is pitch perfect.

Hat tip: The Corner

More Than Meets the Eye?

Peter Wallison has a piece discussing whether Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is really as vacuous as many contend, myself included. He concludes that there is plenty of substance to the Obama campaign, just that it's a little warmed over. But Wallison opens his piece with the following:

The television images are striking. A handsome young candidate, an adoring audience, a beautifully delivered speech in which he offers to bring us together as a nation, and speaks of his "movement for change:" "I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years" he says, "re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America." Nice rhetoric. Is it real or is it theater? Relax: it's theater.

A visit to Barack Obama's website reveals that this is not a candidate who is offering a new left-right synthesis—a new way of looking at our politics and bridging the old Red-Blue divide. Instead, what we see in 60 pages of policy proposals and commitments are the same old ideas of the Democratic Left. Even the rhetoric is old.

This is precisely the point. There is a fundamental, even obvious disconnect between the policies Obama is proposing and his stated aim to unite the country behind his platform of hopeful change, but his actual changes are the standard Democratic policies Republicans have been fighting against since Ronald Reagan ran for president and conservatives have been fighting since the modern conservative movement cohered in the 1950's. We're not "re-fighting the same fights we had in the 1990s." These fights were never finished, and unless Obama expects Republicans in general and conservatives in particular to abandon their principles, to stop fighting for the policies they believe are best for the country for the sake of public unity is absurd. If he thinks political division is only about one faction or another gaining power for power's sake, he is sorely deluded.

Plainly, something has to give. If Obama wants to govern in a spirit of public unity, he will have to set aside his policy proposals, and if he wants to see his policies enacted, he will have to retreat to the dynamic of Red vs. Blue.* Either Obama's rhetoric is empty, or his policy proposals are empty promises. That is the choice he faces, and if he tries to avoid making that choice, it may get him elected, but it will ultimately cripple his presidency.

This raises some interesting questions. Is Obama aware of the inherent contradiction between his rhetoric and his policy proposals? If he isn't, do we want someone so naive in the White House? If he is, which aspect gives way, unity or policy? Ultimately, the question, "Where's the beef?" remains a valid question, though in a different sense. Is Obama interested primarily in uniting the country, using his platform to make him appear a more substantive candidate next to Senator Hillary Clinton (who has similar issues of substance as Obama, just less obviously so)? Is his rhetoric simply a front for his policies? If it is the former, his candidacy still lacks substance, validating the original sense of "Where's the beef?" If the latter, then Wallison's characterization is correct, and Obama's rhetoric of unity is patently dishonest.**

*No, not that Red vs. Blue.

**This is not necessarily to say Obama is lying. He would only be lying if he knew his rhetoric to be dishonest.

Best for the Right

Jim Geraghty notes that Rush Limbuagh has been urging Republicans in Ohio and Texas to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton in today's primaries on the grounds that the longer the Democrats spend beating up on each other, the more it helps Senator John McCain. This is probably correct, but I wonder if it is really best for conservative political aims going forward.

As has been noted by many conservatives, Rush Limbaugh included, there are several significant issues between Senator McCain and the conservative base of the Republican party. These differences are so great and the bitterness they have engendered so severe that it is believed many will stay home on election day. More importantly, conservatives feel his favored policies, if enacted, on immigration, global warming and embryonic stem cell research would be detrimental to the welfare of the nation. Many conservatives are unsure of McCain, not willing to trust him on issues other than the war and want to see him make rapprochement with them by addressing concerns they have over these and other issues. In an election cycle that looks to favor Democrats rather heavily, McCain will need all of the support he can get, and he will especially need to shore up his conservative base if he wants to win.

However, the Clinton-Obama cat-fight threatens to disrupt this calculus. If they do enough damage to each other, McCain may well conclude that emphasizing his status as a maverick willing to break with the party he desires to lead provides him with a greater electoral advantage in the general election by appealing to independents put off by the internecine conflict in the Democrat party (which will only get nastier if Clinton believes she has even a ghost of a chance).

A settled Democratic nominee forces McCain to shore up his base and go from there. A nasty political brawl on the Democratic side makes it less necessary for McCain to appease would-be conservatives unsure about whether the costs of a McCain presidency would outweigh the benefits. That's not to say emphasizing his maverick status wouldn't work for McCain; it may well. But if the consequence of a McCain victory is "comprehensive immigration reform", a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions, and embryonic stem cell research, conservatives may well view a McCain victory as being rather Pyrrhic.

No Christian Case for Capitalism?

According to Robert Tracinski, Buckleyite Fusionism is dead. Tracinski claims this is because "its basic premise--that the moral foundation of free markets and Americanism can be left to the religious traditionalists--is false."

Tracsinski elaborates:

The reason for this shift toward the religious left is that religion cannot support the real basis for capitalism and a strong American national defense: a morality of rational self-interest. Christianity is too deeply committed to a philosophy of self-abnegation, a destructive morality that urges men to renounce any interest in worldly goods and to turn the other check in the face of aggression. The early Christian saints, for example, abandoned all material comforts and lived in caves--which is to say that their closest contemporary disciples are the radical environmentalists. As for foreign policy, St. Augustine spent a fair bit of his massive apologia for Christianity, The City of God, explaining to the Romans that being sacked by barbarians was good for them because it taught them the virtue of humility and cured them of their attachment to material wealth.

It is certainly true that Christianity has an ascetic streak. It is even true that Christians believe material possessions can draw people away from God if not viewed rightly. It is even more true that Christians believe that people who have much have a duty to help those who have little (and this goes for things beyond material possessions). In short, every point Tracinski brings up in support of his contention is true, but it does not follow that a Christian defense of capitalism cannot be made. Indeed, two papal encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, issued in 1891 by Pope Leo, and Centesimus Annus, issued one hundred later by Pope John Paul the Great, while not entirely uncritical of capitalism, heartily endorse the fundamental principles of a free market society and condemn not only socialism but the notion of man being dependent upon the State for his well-being:

For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. [RN, para 7]

Pope Leo goes on to highlight the evil effects produced by socialism and socialist-style policies.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. [RN, para 14-15]

John Paul the Great adds his thoughts in Centesimus Annus:

Two things must be emphasized here: first, the great clarity in perceiving, in all its harshness, the actual condition of the working class — men, women and children; secondly, equal clarity in recognizing the evil of a solution which, by appearing to reverse the positions of the poor and the rich, was in reality detrimental to the very people whom it was meant to help. The remedy would prove worse than the sickness. By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.

His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".³⁹ The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called "Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed.

13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.

In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled out by "Real Socialism".⁴⁰

If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the nature of the person and the "subjectivity" of society, we must reply that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives the person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order without reference to the person's dignity and responsibility.

The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man's true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this situation. [CA, para 12-13]

John Paul goes on to re-affirm the Church's commitment to the free market:

34. It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. But this is true only for those needs which are "solvent", insofar as they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are "marketable", insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price. But there are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish. It is also necessary to help these needy people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources. Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required "something" is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity. [CA, para 34]

The Pope even endorses the role profit plays in a market economy

The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this means that productive factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied. But profitability is not the only indicator of a firm's condition. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people — who make up the firm's most valuable asset — to be humiliated and their dignity offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm's economic efficiency. In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of a business. [CA, para 35]

Again, neither Pope Leo XIII nor Pope John Paul the Great fail to critique capitalism, but they do proclaim the necessity of a free market at the foundation of a just society. Their criticisms of capitalism are found in the error of reducing man and society to the market, as well as man's role as the steward of creation. Their criticisms of capitalism are grounded in the fact that man is a moral actor in addition to being an economic one and thus must use just means to pursue the end of providing for himself and his family (e.g conduct business honestly and do not wantonly destroy the environment, which is God's gift to man). Also, man must have (as has been mentioned above) an active concern for the well-being of his neighbor, rendering such assistance to him as he is able. Indeed, the more a man has, the more he is able to devote to helping his fellow man. Thus, an economic system which maximizes its output is an economic system in which people are able to contribute the most to aid those in need.

The response to poverty and even environmental degradation is not massive state intervention and regulation; it is personal charity and responsibility. Christ calls us to give of ourselves for His sake and the sake of our neighbor in need. He doesn't call us to leave the poor in the hands of the State.

There's nothing wrong with making an honest buck, or even a billion of them. In the end, it's what we do with our money that matters, not how much of it we make: to whom much is given, much will be required.

Obama! Obama!

Jonah Goldberg finds this creepy. To me it's just one more example of the complete subjugation of substance to style that seems to typify Barack Obama.

UAW Flexes It's Muscle

And punches the Michigan economy in the nose.

Ouch

Spengler thinks he has Obama figured out, and his critique of Obama's economic proposals amidst his analysis of American economic conditions is pretty rough too.

Does Obama hate America, as Spengler contends? I'd like to think not, and asinine economic policy proposals are hardly dispositive evidence, nor is a remote analysis of the views of Obama's mother and wife. Still, Obama's high-sounding, empty rhetoric leaves room to wonder. In all of his talk of hope and change he never seems to put forth fundamental principles on the role of government in society. He says lots of nice things, promises lots of nice things, even has a website listing all the things he would like to do, but he has never laid out anything like a coherent philosophy. What basis does he have for believing his policies will be efficacious in bringing about purportedly desired outcomes? Does he really believe, for instance, that the government ought be in the business of determining who is or is not patriotic?

Is Obama's vacuity a sign of political naivete or deliberate obfuscation of his real principles and motivations? I hope it's the former, but I can't rule out the latter.

What to Make of This

Michigan Secretary of State Terry Lynn Land is being sued by the ACLU and several smaller political parties over who gets access to the information of primary voters. Currently only Democrat and Republican parties are granted access to the information, which is reasonable given that the elections in question were the primary elections for the two parties. On the other hand, because the primaries were run by the state any information gathered on voters is public information, and if it is permissible to release voter information to the major parties, there is in principle no reason to fail to release it to other legitimately interested parties.

I don't know who is right in this dispute (though I'm inclined to side with the Secretary of State), but it seems to me that this demonstrates the wisdom of separating the government from the parties' nominating processes. If the primaries were run by the parties, as opposed to the state, any information gathered on those who voted in the primaries would be the property of the parties themselves and would only be available to outside interests at the discretion of the parties themselves. As the situation stands now, while the Democrats and Republicans clearly have the greatest interest in the information of primary voters, it is not clear that they are the only parties with a legitimate interest in the information, and because state jurisdiction makes any information gathered the property of the state, the exclusive right of the Democrats and Republicans to the information is jeopardized.

You Don't Say

According to Reuters:

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday it confronted Iran for the first time with Western intelligence reports showing work linked to making atomic bombs and that Tehran had failed to provide satisfactory answers.

I wonder why. Maybe it's because they have a nuclear weapons program. Maybe.

My Problem with This

Spielberg had to look to China's role in the Darfur crisis to find actions by the Chinese state worthy of his moral opprobrium. Certainly China is deserving of said opprobrium, but he could have found issues closer to Beijing on which to voice his disapproval, such as China's one-child policy, or the state-run religious persecution, or the imprisonment and torture of dissidents, or their censorship of the internet, or lack of property rights.

Honestly, it's a good thing that Spielberg has quit his work with the ChiComs, and it is good that he has chosen to point to China's role in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and whatever issue he cited as his reason for quitting his work on the Olympics, it probably wouldn't have had any effect beyond a slight embarrassment for the Chinese government. Still, it would have been better to cast light on China's domestic abuses as public exposure of these systemic abuses calls into question the legitimacy of the Chinese regime and gives encouragement to dissidents who are working to bring about a free China.

Too Cool, Man!

Satellite gets blow'd up.

President Gore?

I'm skeptical, but John Derbyshire is sticking to his guns.

Cutting Down on Wait Times Government Style

Waiting too long in the hospital for a bed in Britain (more than four hours)? The government has a solution: You can wait in the ambulance. The average in the United States is closer to thirty minutes for critical care, though average treatment time is closer to four hours when non-serious injuries and illnesses are taken into account. Why is this the case? Well, part of it is certainly due to the fact that trips to the ER won't necessarily cost you anything. Because ER's treat regardless of ability to pay, they are an attractive alternative to visits to the doctor's office to deal with minor bumps and bruises or minor illnesses for those who don't have health insurance. Those without health insurance have to pay for trips to the doctor at the same rate HMO's pay, and HMO's pay a rate much higher than what the market would normally bear because removing the responsibility of paying for doctor's visits from the hands of those who would normally pay them (i.e. the patients) and places them in the hands of the HMO's, and ultimately the employers who offered health benefits to their employees. The cost of health care being thus dramatically reduced for the insured, they consume health care at a rate far higher than they otherwise would, increasing the price of health care and causing a shortage of health care, leading to the increased wait times in both ER's and doctors' offices.

The fact that ER's are required to treat regardless of the ability of their patients to pay means that a further segment of the population is receiving, in effect, free health care, and this further increases the size of the health care shortage, as well as its price, as hospitals pass these unmet increased costs on to patients in more long-term situations who either can pay or have to pay. Illegal immigration only compounds this as illegal immigrants, who are generally not the wealthiest folks in the world, are taking full advantage of this, in some areas becoming the majority of hospital patients, straining resources to the point where some of these hospitals are little better than the ones in Mexico, even causing many of them to close.

On top of this, Medicare and Medicaid, though well-intentioned, further subsidize the demand for medical care, exacerbating its costs and shortages. What makes these increases particularly pernicious is that the federal government pays for health care these programs no matter the cost, causing increasing in both the net and proportional share of the federal budget taken up by health care spending, inhibiting its ability to fulfill its other obligations, never mind the effects of an aging population and the additional costs of an increasingly bloated and sclerotic bureaucracy rife with increasing inefficiency. Furthermore, the fact the government's payment for treatments through programs like Medicare once again shields the consumer from the incentive to mitigate cost, driving demand up further and increasing costs and shortages further still.

Litigation drives costs higher still, as litigation insurance drives the cost of doing business higher than it would otherwise be. Doctors also tend to perform more and more unnecessary procedures to reduce the likelihood of being sued for malpractice because they somehow managed to miss some obscure condition that only three people have had in the past hundred years. Now, it is certainly true that doctors who, say, amputate the wrong leg or leave surgical instruments inside of patients or maltreat their patients in some way should be subject to legal action, but doctors should be protected from litigation and criminal proceedings when they have made a decision in good faith, and the burden should be on the litigants to prove maliciousness or negligence on the part of the doctor, not for the doctor to prove he wasn't. Also, in cases where the litigants lose, they should be required to pay they attorney's fees of the defendants. Attorneys are expensive, and many times even the prospect of a lawsuit is enough to prevent a doctor doing what he believes is in the best interest of his patient if he is not sure of its prospects for success.

With the possible exception of an aging population, the federal government bears a large portion of the responsibility for creating the conditions which have precipitated today's health care problems, from increased costs to shortages of care. And what is the solution to this problem? Allowing the market to function effectively to reduce costs and alleviate the health care shortage, while relying upon the good will of the American people to see that those in need get the help they need? Remove the government imposed barriers to a functioning market for health care? Well, if you're a Democrat running for president, your solution is more of the same: increased government interference in the market that will inevitably increase costs, cause shortages, curtail innovation, and reduce overall quality of care. We don't need more health insurance, we need less of it. We don't need more government regulation, we need less of it. We don't need more employer-provided benefits, we need less of them, which will free up the resources of corporations for increased investment, wages/salaries, and whatever else corporations feel the need spend money on to operate more effectively. We don't need more litigation, we need less.

There are certainly problems in the health care system not caused by the government, but getting the government mostly out of the health care business will go a long way to creating an environment where solutions to the health care shortage can be found. If you get the government more involved the only way to reduce your wait-time in the hospital will be to wait in the ambulance.

Who's Right?

The CIA or Mossad. Given the CIA's recent track record on things like 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's WMD program, I think I'll trust Mossad, thank you very much.

Pigs Do Fly

And an anti-Communist article has appeared in The Nation.

A Riposte to Sen. McCain (sort of)

Senator John McCain has said he's willing to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell. Based on his preferred global warming policy, he seems to want to bring the economy with him.

The Great Conservative Crack-Up Continues Apace

Deacon Keith Fournier has an article at Catholic Online on the current state of the Republican Party. Particularly, he is interested in Sean Hannity's dressing down of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mike Huckabee as not being true conservatives. He then contrasts this, quite effectively, with Hannity's much more sympathetic treatment of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Deacon Fournier takes from this that modern conservatism "does not operate from a foundational philosophy which positions the dignity of every human person as the polestar of every public policy analysis. It then fails to order and prioritize issues based upon a hierarchy of values and importance." I don't disagree that this is the philosophical implication of an endorsement of Mayor Giuliani, but I suspect Hannity's willingness to give the mayor a pass on social issues stems more from feelings of personal loyalty to the mayor than from an inadequate philosophical devotion to the dignity of every human person (i.e. he let his feelings obscure his beliefs).

Still, Mayor Giuliani, before he left the race, had picked up significant support from conservatives who knew full well that Rudy was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. Even so, I don't think it is correct to view these endorsements as an explicit rejection of the primacy of the dignity of every human person. The reason for this is the nature of the abortion issue and what many conservatives want to see happen, namely the return of the issue to the political sphere. While it is enshrined as a Constitutional right by Supreme Court precedent, it is impossible for to advance the cause of defending the life of the unborn through the political institutions of American society. Thus, in order for any substantial progress to be made in enshrining protection of the unborn in law, Roe has to be overturned, at which point a correct ruling would hand responsibility for abortion regulation to the states. Mayor Giuliani's pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" or "originalist" justices to the Supreme Court, had it been honored in a Giuliani administration, would have advanced the pro-life cause as surely as had, say, Governor Huckabee nominated the justice. Similarly, these conservatives reasoned that an originalist justice would hold the lines on the expansion of rights discovered by the Supreme Court, among them a right to gay marriage. In both of these cases, these conservatives feel that the proper venue for dealing with issues like abortion and gay marriage are properly dealt with at the state level,* rendering Giuliani's political positions on these issues irrelevant. Indeed, some even believe, plausibly, that a pro-choice Giuliani supporting a return of the issue to the states grants the position a certain degree of political credibility it cannot attain if only those who are pro-life argue for it. I don't buy the argument, but it's not an unreasonable one to make (and might have become more persuasive had Giuliani won the nomination, making the election a choice between him and Clinton or Obama).

I also suspect that the apologetics voiced on Mayor Giuliani's behalf reflect are the result of of the perceived trend on the right and in American politics in general. Deacon Fournier makes this point himself when he says

Most people agree on the importance of economic freedom. Certainly, most Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, want to see the dynamism of the market economy flourish and open up participation to more and more of our people.

Simply put, the trend among voters, swing voters in particular, was thought to be economically conservative, socially liberal (ECSL). The 2004 and 2006 elections have basically amounted to a reverse of this apparent trend, so that the trend now seems to be socially conservative, economically liberal (SCEL). The upshot of this is that on the one hand many on the right had been preparing for a situation where electoral circumstances would have to come to terms with a presidential candidate who held positions that were ECSL and what concessions such a candidate would have to make in order to make him palatable to social conservatives. Now, someone like Governor Huckabee comes along with positions on economic issues that seem closer to those of the Democrats, from "Fair Trade," to support for increased federal funding for arts education, to his embrace of Keynesian "pump-priming," and while his views may be more in line with public sentiment, those on the right have not had time to determine what concessions are necessary to prevent the undermining of conservative economic principles. This becomes an especially thorny issue when you consider the influence the federal government holds over the economy. It was relatively easy for social liberals on the right to say to social conservatives "I don't agree with you, but I won't get in your way," as appeared to happen with Mayor Giuliani because many social issues either can or should be dealt with on the local level. Unfortunately, a live-and-let-live approach becomes much harder when the two sides are advocating contradictory positions as is happening on trade with Gov. Huckabee and Free-Traders.

Then there is the issue of Gov. Huckabee's populism (For a very good take-down of populism, go here.). Deacon Fournier avers that populism is a good thing. If by populism, you mean simply grass-roots democracy or working-class activism, then populism can very well be a good thing, depending on what is being advocated. But there are other senses in which this word is used that are unquestionably bad and which Governor Huckabee has evinced in his rhetoric. The first definition of populism that is undeniably bad is

any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

The second is

A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

These definitions point to a political style and philosophy that relies on emotional appeals offering simplistic solutions to problems (real or perceived) that are long on sentiment, ill-defined principles, grandiose promises and short on effective analysis of the problems. Governor Huckabee's rhetoric about social conservatives being neglected by the Republican Party also smacks of this darker side of populism. From the ban on partial-birth abortion, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, to attempts to enact a Federal Marriage Amendment, to appointing Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, to President Bush holding the line on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, social conservatives have fared as well as, if not better than any other faction of the conservative coalition. The Republican record on social issues may not be perfect over the past seven years, but it has been a far sight better than its record on, say, fiscal issues. There is also the issue of demagoguery, as Jay Nordlinger explains here and here (see second item).

From all I can tell, Governor Huckabee is a good man, and if he were to get the Republican nomination (unlikely at this point), I would vote for him. But his views on economics and national security, as well as his populism have persuaded me that, among the major contenders for the Republican nomination, the only one less likely to get my support would have been Rudy Giuliani.

*They're right on abortion and wrong on gay marriage.

The Market Responds

With many places instituting bans on smoking indoors in public places, cigarette companies are developing shorter cigarettes with more punch.

Subsidising Illegality

If a man has more than one wife, he can claim additional welfare benefits for his additional for each of his additional wives. Is this happening in some enlightened Muslim country with a generous welfare state? Nope. It's happening in Great Britain, where polygamy is illegal. Why in the world would a country supposedly governed by the rule of law not only allow such behavior to continue but pay additional benefits to those who violate the law in such a brazen manner?

At bottom, this seems to be a problem of multiculturalism. Muslims are considered an alien culture in Britain, and the doctrines of multiculturalism dictate that host societies make attempts to accommodate the alien cultures in their midst. This is a reasonable thing to do, but only up to a point. From a political point of view, the purpose of accommodating other cultures is to ease the transition of people from alien cultures into the host culture, making assimilation easier and reducing tensions between the host culture and its strange guests. To the extent that these objectives are attained, accommodation makes sense, but when accommodation is demanded in matters that go to the fundamental organizing principles of a society, it ceases to be a means of assimilation and social cohesion and instead walls off the host culture from the culture of the newcomers and increases tensions between host and guest.

In this case, the principles at issue are the rule of law and the nature of the institution of marriage. The issue of the rule of law is fairly obvious: Polygamy is illegal in Britain. Muslims in Britain are receiving additional welfare payments for having multiple wives. Therefore, the British government is rewarding British Muslims for violating British law, QED. Much more interesting is the question of why. Why is the British government paying Muslim men to violate British law? Certainly it is consistent with the principles of multiculturalism, but I suspect the decision has as much if not more to do with the nature of the institution if marriage. In what could be described as Christendom (traditionally Christian Europe and places where Christianity came to be the primary religion through European colonization), marriage was the union between one man and one woman for the purposes of uniting them (and, importantly for reasons of politics, their families), as well as for the procreation of the subsequent generation. On the left, of which Gordon Brown's Labour Party is a part, undermining this traditional understanding of marriage has been a central goal in their attempts to remake society as they see fit. The gay marriage movement has been essential to undermining the heterosexual nature of marriage, and it is more than likely that in Muslim polygamy Labour sees an opportunity to undermine the monogamous nature of marriage in Britain. By granting tacit approval to polygamy among Muslims, the British government has rejected the idea that marriage in Britain is a monogamous institution, clearing the way for future attempts to enshrine polygamous marriage in British law.