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.

Ken Green Misses the Correlation

Over at Planet Gore, Ken Green wonders why Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore is suddenly questioning the scientific consensus on global warming. The answer is, of course, obvious. The magnitude of the threat to humanity and the global ecosystem in general posed by global warming is inversely proportional to the amount of hot air being spewed by Gore on the issue. Thus, as the magnitude of the threat decreases, the amount of hot air spewed by Gore increases, apparently to the point where predictions he once regarded as legitimate are no longer dire enough to inspire action.

Does Capitalism Lead to Democracy?

That's the question Hilton Root asks in this piece reviewing two books on the subject. Root's conclusion is that it is not necessarily the case:

At least at the global level, the correlation between free markets and plural politics breaks down, and it seems to do so from both ends. Democratic politics often do not support open markets, and open markets do not always reinforce the tendency to democratic government.

And:

Young, still-developing democracies lack the resources and the institutions to counteract the enormous lobbying power of global business. Young democracies have few mechanisms to prevent large corporate contributions from influencing political outcomes. Even mature democracies, after all, often fail to meet this challenge.

Yet it is also clearly the case that under the correct circumstances, capitalism is a major pillar of democracy, as has been the case in the United States. Under what conditions then does capitalism foster democracy. It seems to me that three conditions need to be present in order for capitalism to foster democracy: the rule of law, limited government, and an economy with its foundations in entrepreneurial activity.

American political philosophy begins with the premise that government governs with the consent of the governed and that its powers and duties are established by the Constitution, which is held to be the supreme law of the land. No man is held to be above the law or beneath it, and the legitimate actions of government, groups and individuals are bounded by the law, not by the whims of a king or potentate.

Closely linked to the rule of law, though not necessarily following from it (see the European Constitution), is the notion of limited government. The Constitution of the United States limits the power of the United States' government to regulate the economic activity of the people of the United States. This limitation on government power reduces the incentive of players in the marketplace to use the government to advance their business ends through regulation of the market, seizure of the assets of competing firms, etc.

The third major component of the equation, an economy grounded in entrepreneurial ventures, is also essential because it limits the ability of larger corporations to drive competitors out of the market. It also reduces the political power of individual corporations and increases the incentive of individuals to fight for limited market regulation to give them freedom to carry on their businesses as they see fit.

Though the power of government has waxed, especially since the 1930's; living constitutionalism has somewhat undermined the rule of law; and large corporations play a larger role in American life than they had in the early history of the United States, and many of them pressure the government to pass regulations designed to benefit them to the hindrance of their competition, especially small businesses, the foundations of American society, built on the rule of law, limited government and the entrepreneurial spirit continue to drive American vitality and preserve its democratic society.

What does this tell us about, say, Iraq. There is no history of the rule of law in Iraq; many people look to the government for jobs; the nation's largest portion GDP comes from oil revenue, and the Iraqi oil industry is state-run. None of the three elements that contribute to a flourishing of capitalism and democracy are present, though there is a significant entrepreneurial element in Iraqi society. As long as the United States remains in Iraq, something like democracy and capitalism will survive in Iraq because that is the system the United States is promoting, and they are the dominant power in the country. If the United States leaves too soon, it is likely that the cycle of tribalism and nationalism that dominated Iraqi society in the post-Ottoman era will come to dominate Iraq again with spikes of Saudi Wahabbism and radical Iranian Shi'ism further enflaming the situation. If the United States is willing to remain the dominant player in Iraq for the foreseeable future, a stable, democratic, capitalist Iraq may yet emerge, but it will take awhile.

A Riposte to Gov. Huckabee

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has been tossing around the line that people want their president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off, clearly a shot at former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, behind whom I have thrown my feather's weight of support. This is a fairly clever line from a pretty clever guy, but, like much of what Governor Huckabee says, it doesn't bear up under close scrutiny. The necessary implication of this statement is that the American people want a president who is like their buddies, as opposed to the guy who is willing and able to make the tough, costly, but necessary decisions for the good of the country. Thus, by Governor Huckabee's own admission, he aspires to be your buddy, while Governor Romney is willing to make the tough choices that any president invariably faces and accept the consequences of those choices.

Well, Governor Huckabee, I'd love for you and me to be buddies. You seem like a good, upright, God-fearing man with a winning personality whose friendship I would greatly enjoy. I'm just not voting for you for President of the United States because I don't want a president who puts being friendly over the good of the country.

Not So Fair Tax

Arnold Kling has a piece at TCSDaily on the flaws inherent in the Fair Tax, a proposal to replace all Federal taxes with a 30% national sales tax. Personally, I'm partial to the flat tax, but I find Kling's proposal at the end of the piece intriguing, essentially combining a potion of the Fair Tax with a proposal similar to the one being advanced by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

I'm not sure what I think of the plan as a whole, but Kling closes with the strongest argument in favor of his plan: "if the rules about keeping the income tax invariant and paying for new spending with sales tax increases could be made to stick, the bias toward higher government spending might be greatly reduced." I don't know how you could make the income tax invariant in any meaningful way (which is why I am inclined to be opposed to this measure), but if it could be made to work with a measure short of a constitutional amendment, a proposal such as Kling's could very well win my support.

Who Do You Love?

Or at least support. Find out here. I'm currently supporting Mitt Romney for president, and according to this, he's my top match (91.18% match). Of the other major Republican candidates, the rest of the candidates rank as follows: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani. I find that interesting because I've recently begun hoping for a Romney-Thompson ticket. The list doesn't perfectly track with my preferences, though, because I prefer McCain over Huckabee for foreign policy reasons.

The calculator ranks all of the candidates, not just those from one party, so it ranked the Democrats for me as well. Now, I haven't seriously considered voting for any of the Dems because I have too many disagreements with them on first principles and fundamental issues, but I still have my preferences, and the calculator gets these right too, though this more or less coincidence. Coming in at the top for the Dems is Bill Richardson (a 32.35% match), followed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich (an 8.82% match).

Another Must-Read from Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn has a piece in The New Criterion on the effects of "popular" music on the culture at large (hopefully it won't disappear behind a firewall). Steyn's is that the rise of rock, rap and the other various styles of "popular" music, leading to their ubiquity in society at large has had the effect of unmooring music from its long and rich tradition in Western society so that we no longer have any barometer for judging what is actually good and worth preserving, causing us to reach out for the latest fad and undermining the foundations of culture.

As someone who very much enjoys a fair amount of "popular" music, indeed grew up listening to mostly rock music, but has of late come to a greater and greater appreciation of classical music, I'd have to say that he's right. What I find most interesting about the phenomenon, though, is how I've come to view the various forms of "popular" music in light of having developed something of a taste for classical music. I still enjoy a lot of what I used to enjoy both in terms of specific groups and songs, as well as styles of music, but listening to classical music has caused me to draw a distinction between what I like and what is actually good. I also find myself drawing the conclusion that songs are good as far as they go. That is, while Stairway to Heaven may not measure up to Beethoven's Fifth, within the constraints imposed by the genre of rock music, it is an excellent song, and I will listen to it if I run across it on the radio.

Interestingly, I seem to be in the same place with classical music as I was when I first started listening to rock music. There are pieces I recognize instantly, but mostly its all just classical music, and I'm not at the point where, beyond a few well-known pieces (e.g. Ride of the Valkyries), I cannot readily differentiate between composers and pieces. Maybe as I listen to more and more of it, I will be able to better distinguish between composers and styles and maybe even learn some of the terminology (I have no idea what the difference between an adagio and a libretto is, for instance). But as things stand now, all I can really say is that there's much more to music than "popular" music, and it is worth investigating because it is the foundation of the western musical tradition, and the more we ignore it, the more vapid "popular" music becomes.

Well This Settles It, Then

On balance, Republicans are sane, and Democrats are crazy. Well, maybe not, but the poll is at least as credible as all those studies claiming conservatives are somehow inherently mentally defective. Still, the Kossacks and their ilk serve as anecdotal support that more Democrats are mentally unbalanced than Republicans, but the independents are nuttiest of all. Probably being unable to make up their minds drives them over the edge.