Makes You Want to Go John Galt...

The lefties are going crazy over the notion of "going John Galt."

Recall, for example, that Dr. Helen Smith put out the call to Americans who are cutting their own work output and productivity to avoid the Obama administration's conviscatory tax regime, "Going John Galt? Tell Dr. Helen About It ..."

Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds have been hammering the issue as well.

But get a load of some of the responses to all of this among our nihilist antagonists. Starting off with a bang is Henry Farrell's, "Wingnuts of the World Unite!", which features "The ‘Go Galt, Go!’ Manifesto":

We proudly salute “Dr. Helen,” Glenn Reynolds, and Michelle Malkin, for identifying the only possible response to Barack Obama’s victory – ‘going Galt.’ By withdrawing their creative and intellectual achievements from the economy and stopping tipping waitstaff, the schmibertarian right can surely bring the parasites and Democrats to their knees. We look forward to these three thought leaders striking the obvious first blow, by refusing to blog for the ungrateful masses and withdrawing to a secret compound until the world capitulates to their demands! Only a universal wingnut blogging strike can bring the moochers to their senses. John Galt lives!

Keep in mind that Henry's an esteemed political scientist at George Washington University, and a Facebook friend to Juan Cole!

Now let's check the left's response to TigerHawk, and his video, "Who Are These "Rich' People?" over at the YouTube thread:

From "Commieatheist":

Jesus Christ, stop whining, you insufferable asshole. Your top marginal tax rate is being raised 3%. Big fucking deal. Grow a pair of balls and stop crying about how much harder you work than anyone else. Lots of people in this country work hard, but very few make as much money as you do. That's life! I am sick of rich fucks like you complaining about how hard you have it...

From "Rock6191":

Wow. "A face for radio" was my first impression. Then I listened to the words, and I wondered what inspires someone like this guy to open up himself to this sort of ridicule. All Obama is doing is raising the tax on that portion of someone's income that's above $250K. So, if you make $260K, the $10K above 250K is taxed at 38% instead of 33%. That means your tax only goes up 500 bucks. I wonder if this guy participated in some of those teabagging parties last week...

Now here's a response at Daily Kos:

Go live your Randian fantasies, go create that wonderful utopia in which only the most wealthy are permitted entry, and you are not burdened with the outrageous insult of having to contribute back a proportionate share of your income in order to help maintain the very fabric of the nation around you. I can see now that the thought that you might have to pay the same share of your income in taxes that your housekeeper does has drained your already pale blanched, and the thought of having to pay as much in taxes as your wretched mothers and fathers did, a few decades before you, is nothing less than an armed assault on your beachheads.

What fool would suggest we possibly return to the same tax polices that existed under that shameless wealth-stealer and Stalinist, Ronald Reagan? And what insane person would dare seek to treat achievers identically to the lower classes, the people with grubby hands and only one house?

And of course, this isn't all about class war, or so they say.

Glenn Beck's looking more like a prophet all the time...

The North Vietnamese Communists Weren’t So Bad...

It's interesting to see how debates on the Obama administration's foreign policy are playing out on the left.

As I noted the other day - and Jason at The Westen Experience has picked up - the left is spinning a triumphalist meme on the redeployment from Iraq. With public opinion finding a majority of Americans seeing the war as won, Democrats have shifted to the stance of progressive wise men.

A couple of posts I'm reading this morning got me thinking some more about this. One of these is NeoNeocon's post on Vietnam and the antiwar movement, "Advocating Defeat Without Consequences: “Ending” the War. This passage is key:

The Left ... has always blamed America’s actions during the Vietnam war—and especially the bombing of Cambodia—for the ascendance of the brutal Pol Pot regime and its later killing fields (see this article, especially pages 6-7, for an argument against that controversial theory, as well as an explanation of its journalistic origins). The Left has also consistently minimized the suffering of the people of South Vietnam when the North took over. To the Left, the Northern Vietnamese Communists weren’t so bad, and the Cambodian Communists (who even they have to admit were pretty nasty folk) would never have succeeded but for the actions of the US in fighting them and their North Vietnamese allies.

Not only does the Left whitewash the consequences of the American defeat in Vietnam. I’ll go even further and say that to the Left, the Vietnam pullout was actually a victory—for them. It’s something they had promoted for a long time, and they finally won. What’s more, except for the rare Vietnam revisionist historian, their version of history won; it has come to dominate the texts and the press. And so the Left neither wanted—nor needed—to look at the negative consequences of the defeat for others.

The second post I'm reading is Mark Harvey's, "Callin' All The Clans Together," which adds some profane outrage at the antiwar defeatism on both left and right:

Personally, I didn't bleed for this Nation, nor did I carry one of my best friends trying to get him to safety and medical attention as his blood ran down my back just to have some limp-wristed holier-than-thou "get along with the enemy" conservatives tell me that I am a goddamn fucking black helicopter republican. First off, I am not a republican. I am a pissed off DAVFW and if any of the above offends you, kiss my ass. By the way, my friend made it back to safety after his life left him. His last words to me were, "Hey man. Get your hand off my cod sack bitch." He died 5 minutes later. Fuck Obama.

I want to stress Mark mention of the "get along" conservatives, who are the very same "antiwar conservatives" who have made common cause with anti-Americans of the far left.

California Supreme Court Set to Uphold Prop 8

The Los Angeles Times reports on today's arguments before the California Supreme Court:

The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers.

They had hoped the same court majority that overturned the state's previous marriage ban would conclude that Proposition 8 was an impermissible constitutional revision.

Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive.

The other two justices who ruled in favor of marriage rights last year - Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar - seemed more open to the revision challenge. Moreno even helped gay rights lawyers with their arguments.

But the court revealed no division on whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before November.

Even Justice Marvin Baxter, the court's most conservative member, observed that the couples got married after receiving the right by "the highest court of the state."

"How can we deny the validity of those marriages?" Baxter asked.

The court's ruling is due within 90 days.

There's more at the link, but check Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy for some of the legal trade-offs the Court must make to come to its expected ruling. Looking ahead, will a simple majority by initiative be able to strip the fundamental "rights" of any numerical minority in the state?

No matter what happens, the gay marriage debate doesn't end here.

A legal rights group, Gay & Lesbian Adocates & Defenders (GLAD), filed suit on Tuesday to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). The federal law grants an exception to Article IV's Full Faith and Credit command for states' obligations to each other (which requires that states recognize the acts, records, and judgments of other states). So, things at some point will move up from the state level to the federal courts - in California, for example, following the resolution of the Prop 8 challenge, but also in other parts of the country where gay activists are pressing their advantage in the perceived leftist climate engendered by economic crisis and Obamessianism.

Recall, though, that just 31 percent of Americans currently support full same-sex marriage rights (when the question is asked with the alternative responses of "civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples," or "no legal recognition for same-sex couples"). So, we'll be back to largely a political war over defining what it means to uphold traditional values, but also a struggle to seek a moderate compromise that might work to calm the culture wars before things become so intractable the nation sees a repeat of the worst violence and excesses of the civil rights era.

Are "Christian Hipsters" Christian?

Via Vinegar and Honey, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to learn about "Christian hipsters" at Andrew Sullivan's. So, who are these folks, and more importantly, what do the stand for? Not much, actually, at least in terms of Christian moral traditionalism:

A "Christian Hipster" as described in this article merely describes a person who both believes in Christ and explores the world for themselves, rather than taking their Pastor/Mother/Father/Dobson's opinion as unquestionable. I don't resent being lumped in with what should be a larger portion of American believers. I revel in it!

Mother/Father? Geez, and that's not all: "Are You a Christian Hipster?"

Christian hipsters don’t like megachurches, altar calls, and door-to-door evangelism. They don’t really like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart or youth pastors who talk too much about Braveheart. In general, they tend not to like Mel Gibson and have come to really dislike The Passion for being overly bloody and maybe a little sadistic. They don’t like people like Pat Robertson, who on The 700 Club famously said that America should “take Hugo Chavez out”; and they don’t particularly like The 700 Club either, except to make fun of it. They don’t like evangelical leaders who get too involved in politics, such as James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, who once said of terrorists that America should “blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” They don’t like TBN, PAX, or Joel Osteen. They do have a wry fondness for Benny Hinn, however.

Christian hipsters tend not to like contemporary Christian music (CCM), or Christian films (except ironically), or any non-book item sold at Family Christian Stores. They hate warehouse churches or churches with American flags on stage, or churches with any flag on stage, really. They prefer “Christ follower” to “Christian” and can’t stand the phrases “soul winning” or “non-denominational,” and they could do without weird and awkward evangelistic methods including (but not limited to): sock puppets, ventriloquism, mimes, sign language, “beach evangelism,” and modern dance. Surprisingly, they don’t really have that big of a problem with old school evangelists like Billy Graham and Billy Sunday and kind of love the really wild ones like Aimee Semple McPherson.

These guys sound like "Christian leftists" (or "moral pussies," frankly). Notice how pretty much the entire "hipster" spiel mounts its attack on Biblical literalism and right-wing theological traditionalism, especially of the post-Reagan-era variety.

The problem here is that when folks move away from contemporary evangelicalism or charismatic ethical doctrines, "Christian hipsters" shift from eternal moral standards and ethical rationalism to a loose self-reverential standpoint. That is to say,"Christian hipsters" are opposed to a moral hierarchy of ecclesiastical goodness, and are hence less rational since their theology is based on subjective wants rather than on objective standards of righteousness.

Or, if you're not a "Christian hipster," you're a "Christianist."

Gupta Worried About "Financial Impact" of Gov't Post

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who is CNN's rock-star medical correspondent, will not join the Obama administration as U.S. Surgeon General. It turns out the Tom Daschle tax-cheat scandal left Gupta with a bad taste in his mouth, but the real reason is ... wait for it! ... money:

Gupta, who was once named one of the "sexiest men alive" by People Magazine, was never officially named to the post and continued to report on CNN. He did not issue a statement or explain his decision Thursday. Sources said the medical journalist told CNN executives that he wanted to devote more time to his medical practice and to his duties at the network.

But one source close to him said he was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health reform process. Gupta has built a lucrative media empire that includes appearances on CBS as well as CNN and book deals. He had expressed concern to friends about the financial impact on his wife and children.

And so, where's the outrage on the left with these "upper-class idiots" who are actually more worried about maintaining a decent standard of living than downsizing for the "pulblic welfare"?

Oh wait! Here it is: It turns out Gupta was getting hammered for "'his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko' and for having a cozy relationship with drug companies." Okay, Gupta's a wingnut! Yo, you "working affluent," no criticism of left-wing freak-show movie directors and "cozy" professional partnerships with drug producers working to provide the best medical care in the world!

Check Out Suzanna Logan!

Well, the blogosphere's a little more welcoming with the addition of Suzanna Logan to the neighborhood.

Suzanna hung out with Robert Stacy McCain at CPAC last week, and she's being mentioned as a young conservative with a bright future (very bright ... click for pictures).

Well, Suzanna was blogless at the conference, but not any more. She's here to tell you how in the world she threw caution to the wind and created her own Blogger home:

During CPAC last week, I found myself in the fortuitous position of being introduced to Taki's Magazine's golden boy Mr. Spencer (we both knew it was coming), or as he is more commonly known, not least to himself, "The All-Important Magazine Editor.” (He will from here on be known as TAIME.) At first glance, he's one of those charm fellows we all adore so. At second glance, he’s … well, actually, I didn’t get a second glance. Why? I was bloglesss.

Sure, we could attribute his almost immediate leave of absence from the bar where we were chatting to a lack of chemistry, a mutual and instant dislike, my having forgotten to apply deodorant that night, etc. But it’s much more fun to assume that it was actually a result of my admitting without requisite shame that not only did I not have a blog but I had little intention of starting one.

You'll have to read the rest for the clever resolution, and be sure to leave a comment. Jimmie at Sundries Shack is getting in a good word before Suzanna's blog takes off like Barack Obama coffee mugs!

And since I'm linking around, don't miss a click through to Taki Mag's, The Sniper's Tower.

Cynthia McKinney at Long Beach City College

Cynthia McKinney, the former U.S. Representative and 2008 Green Party presidential nominee, spoke at Long Beach City College today. Ms. McKinney visited the campus at the invitation of the college's Cultural Affairs Council, in honor of Women's History Month.

The talk was poorly attended. Perhaps four people were in the audience. Before speaking Ms. McKinney approached me and I introduced myself as a professor at the college. I also spoke with her for a few more minutes after her prepared comments.

Ms. McKinney is friendly and polite in person. Upon my introduction, she mentioned that her "dream" was to become a college professor. When I inquired as to her training and qualifications - perhaps in the law - it seemed as though her lack of professional credentials in such areas were a disappointment to her. She asked if she could put me on her e-mailing list, so I gave her my business card and thanked her for visiting. Talking with her in such a cordial yet intimate fashion was interesting - particularly in my case, as a blogger who routinely exposes and repudiates the radical politics for which Ms. McKinney advocates.

She had prepared comments on her recent ill-fated "humanitarian" mission to Gaza during Israel's December campaign against Palestinian rocket attacks. The best report on this is from Israel Matzav, "Moonbat McKinney's Boat Turned Back by Israeli Navy."

In Ms. McKinney's recounting, the boat on which she was travelling was being pursued by Israeli gunships. The Israeli navy had allegedly harassed her boat with menacing search lights, in a belligerent cat-and-mouse fashion, and then finally surrounded her vessel. Ms. McKinney claimed to have been rammed by one of the Israeli ships: "I think they were trying to kill us ... that's the only explanation" for being hit, she said. Ms. McKinney went on to explain how harrowing was the experience, as she "can't swim" and was wearing "no life jacket."

She mentioned that two lawsuits were currently in preparation, one by the Free Gaza Movement, who had sponsored the humanitarian mission, and the other by the "Malaysia Peace Organization." According to Free Gaza, " The movement organizers are pursuing legal actions against the government of Israel for piracy on the high seas as well as damages to the boat. Estimates range from 100 to 150 thousand euros and will take five months to repair."

Yet, for all of this, Ms. McKinney appeared as something of a wastrel of the social justice movement. Perhaps due to sparse attendence and no media, Ms. McKinney's discussion came off as the hopeless wimperings of a preposterous victim. This was not what I expected from one who is otherwise reputed as a morally righteous freedom fighter in the international peace movement. There was, for example, nothing approaching the fire-breathing manifesto seen in the video above, which features Ms. McKinney's speech to the Re-Create '68 rally outside at Democratic convention last August. As well, she did not say, as she had in December 2008, that "What I am recommending is the creation of a political movement inside my country that will constitute a surgical strike for global justice." No, the former presidential candidate appeared much like a spent nuclear rod, highly radioactive but small in volume.

Ms. McKinney said she had no immediate plans to run for public office. She did indicate that she'll continue her networking within the social justice movement. And with that I wished her well and said goodbye.

Should Steele Quit?

I can't say that Michael Steele's appointment as RNC chairman knocked my socks off. I didn't even write a post about at the time. I do have seriously questions about the man's intelligence and integrity, however, after he bashed Rush Limbaugh the other day.

Some bloggers have called for Steele's head, and now we've got a Dr. Ada Fisher of the RNC calling for Steele's resignation.

On MSNBC Wednesday, Norah O'Donnell discussed Steele's tenure so far with Jennifer Skalka of Hotline On Call (via Newsbusters):

O'DONNELL: He's 30 days on the job, he's says he's made some mistakes. But the bigger question a number of Republicans here in Washington are raising is, there's no political director at the RNC, there's no finance director, that person just recently left. There's almost nobody left at the RNC, except a couple of consultants that are advising Steele. He says he's doing it to clean out the party and restart it anew, but is that part of the problem?

SKALKA: Well, I think part of the problem is that he's show-boating on television instead of doing some of the internal reorganizing that members want to see him doing. You know, he's got a big task ahead of him, from fund-raising to revamping the online operation for the party. There are some pretty -- pretty big tasks ahead and I think there are folks who want him to get to it and stay off the air for now.

Not to put too much faith in the memes coming out of MSNBC, but if Steele's not really doing PARTY ORGANIZATION, but rather public relations, it's truly going to be a "long winter."

(As to whether Steele should quit? Well, the party's already in deep disarray, so it's not as if GOP fortunes can sink that much lower. Give the guy another month or two - kind of like a "probationary period" - and see how things go in the meanwhile, especially with fundraising and committee staffing. It couldn't hurt to look around for someone with more charisma, in any case. If Republicans really do have a shot at picking up some seats in 2012, the party can't really afford more public relations fiascos like we've seen this week.)

**********

Video Clip: RNC Chairman Michael Steele on Sean Hannity's Show, via Gateway Pundit.

Living Through "Atlas Shrugged," While Leftists Haven't Read It!

David Weigel reports that Representative John Campbell suggests that "People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in "Atlas Shrugged'" ...

John Campbell is my congressman (in Orange County's 48th Congressional District), so please forgive me for a little burst of pride amid all of the collectivist rage that's taking over this country. He's been a consistent small-government advocate, and he blogs at the Green Eyeshade.

"Going John Galt" is turning out to be a big phenomenon on the right, although SOME leftists can't help but try to score some cheap points on all this - and they haven't even read the book!

See for example Matthew Yglesias: "Rep. John Campbell Literally Taking His Policy Cues From Ayn Rand Novels":

I haven’t actually read the book but my understanding is that in Atlas Shrugged they’re actually building a high-speed rail link from Las Vegas to Disneyland.

That's quite revealing. It's a good bet Henry Farrell's never read it either, despite his new Facebook page snarking conservatives for their "going Galt" wingnuttery.

Gee, and that's coming from someone who's "friended" Juan Cole? Wonders never cease!

Arafat Chic

From Reut Cohen's new essay at Pajamas Media:

My distaste for the keffiyeh fashion trend is similar to my displeasure at seeing silly young women sporting Mao handbags, which many Asians and Peruvians take offense to. I would not wear a Che Guevara shirt as I see no reason to identify with a madman who massacred innocent Cubans. Therefore, I believe the general public needs to be cognizant that the trendy scarf they feel compelled to wear is offensive to people like me who have lost loved ones because of PLO terrorism.

I am a Middle Easterner and I am not offended if someone chooses to wear traditionally Middle Eastern clothing. At Sephardi/Mizrahi hennas and weddings, the theme is typically “Middle Eastern” and I have never been ashamed of the culture that my grandparents were from. However, the keffiyeh is a different case altogether as it is a symbol of Palestinian terror and not merely a Middle Eastern garment used to protect oneself from sand or dirt. This trendy scarf has extremely negative connotations — in this case it is a garment that is associated with Arafat, who is arguably one of the most murderous individuals of our time.

While an individual has every right to wear a garment, people need to be aware that symbols — such as the swastika, Klan robe, or keffiyeh — can never be removed from their meanings. It is difficult to separate the political statement of Palestinian terror from this particular garment.

I've yet to see a student on my campus wear Arafat chic.

Che Guevara's still the rage, and Barack Obama gear is in vogue. But give it time. Both Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are in the charts.

Redefining Individualism

One of the reasons that I've hammered the folks at Ordinary Gentlemen so much is not just because of their fundamental cowardice and dishonesty, but because they're extremely easy targets as well. It makes for interesting blogging, in any case, and the much-needed clarification of ideas.

E.D. Kain provides us with another opportunity this afternoon, in "Redefining Prosperity." E.D. is of course defending the dramatic Democratic expansion of government under Obama's fiscal policy, but he's also trying to justify this power grab by offering a new model of public purpose, an all-American revisionist philosophy of statism that's offered as if it's so self-evident that we should look upon those clinging to "archaic" conceptions of individualism and liberty as literally less biologically-evolved.

Check this out:

Individualism ties in well with the Republican Party’s superficial promise of small government through lower taxation. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that to some degree the State needs to intervene, to provide social safety nets in a society that obviously merits them. They have more faith in the power and beneficence of the government. Republicans are equally bound to the State, but believe in a broader partnership between it and private institutions. Both place an enormous amount of faith and emphasis on the individual. The irony, of course, is that individualism and the size of the State are bound inextricably, the one to the other. The more Americans become boxed into their “liberating” roles as individuals, the more detached we become from our communities and families. These antiquated institutions become accidentally irrelevant. Once upon a time, our family was our social safety net, and the community an even broader one. Yet, as we’ve been increasingly driven into our roles as individuals - through political and economic policies as well as through rapid technological development - and as our faith in community and family has dwindled, we have become ever more reliant on the State to provide for our needs.

Read the whole thing, here.

But let's note right away that E.D. might have set his essay up with some kind of definition of "individualism." Most scholars working in political culture don't use the necessarily popularized version of "rugged individualism," for the manifest reason that it's a term that easily abused, "John Wayned" into some kind of caricature of a phenomenon that should really be thought of as a more complex ideational identity of self-reliance and freedom from interference by the state (lower case for "state," as it's not a proper noun).

When we refer to "individualism" we're not latching onto some snazzy catch-word that's hip with the inside-the-Beltway conservative class - although certainly Rush Limbaugh and others take advantage of the powerful imagery associated with the historically-undeniable notion that people are better off to grow and prosper when LEFT ALONE. Indeed, the development of the democracy in many respects has been driven by individualism. The sense here is of a classically liberal orientation between the citizen and the state, WITHIN a constitutionally-limited polity based on respect for freedom of conscience and property rights.

Note something here as well: We think of individualism as a central component of our American ETHNIC identity, and especially as a psychology of values encompassing our mythic ideals as an immigration society. Over the centuries the immigrants to our shores who helped build and grow this nation have been glued together by a shared dream of acceptance, egalitarianism, and opportunity. And by egalitarianism I mean specifically equality of opportunity, the chance for average people prosper in the absence of hierarchical categories of aristicratic or ecclesiastic privilege. To read works like Gordon Wood's, Radicalism of the American Revolution, and Louis Hartz's, The Liberal Tradition in America, is to be regaled in the powerful moving force of an anti-feudal culture that has been unmatched as a developmental model in the history of the world.

Notice what Robert Bellah says about the power of this classic American political culture in today's day and age:

I believe I can safely borrow terminology from Habits of the Heart and say that a dominant element of the common culture is what we called utilitarian individualism. In terms of historical roots this orientation can be traced to a powerful Anglo-American utilitarian tradition going back at least as far as Hobbes and Locke, although it operates today quite autonomously, without any necessary reference to intellectual history. Utilitarian individualism has always been moderated by what we called expressive individualism, which has its roots in Anglo-American Romanticism, but which has picked up many influences along the way from European ethnic, African-American, Hispanic and Asian influences.

What's interesting in Bellah's piece is how he agrees with E.D. Kain's basic point on the power of the state, but the RESULT of the power is not to create greater DEPENDENCY on government, as E.D. avers (and desires). No, the state works to reinforce, with a world-historical enmority, the power of markets. And markets in turn unleash the productive capacity of individuals to create and produce and innovate, which advances society through wealth creation and the consolidation of entrepreneurial social capital.

Note that Bellah's writing twenty years ago. He's lamenting at that time the shift toward radical muliticultualism, which we know now is even more pronounced today. Bellah sees individualism and robust civic identity as the bulwarks against the more fissiparous tendencies of multiculturalism; the individualistic and civic levels form the social glue of communities that E.D. Kain has written off as "irrelevant."

This is to say that people are not "boxed in" by our historically individualistic culture. Our overwhelming norms and practices as a people are DRIVEN and SHAPED by it. Individualism is what creates a natural aversion to the power of the state. And this is not new. It's not as if the state itself is coterminous with large welfare-policy provision, as E.D. implies. The ORIGINAL state was the medieval actor that arose following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Modern democratic societies emerges as a specific reaction to the absolutism of the national monarchies in Europe. Does it really make any sense in the American context that people today are abandoning "communities" and families" in favor of hegemonic state structures that are alleged to be atomizing them out of their natural social elements?

Indeed, the argument's absurd. One of the most talked about phenomena in the last couple of decades has been an extreme form of suburbanization found in "gate-guarded" master-planned communities. California's well known for this form of hyper-individualism. People who are successul in their businesses or professional careers need very little from the state other than a system of legal order of rights and contracts, and the public goods of community safety (police). Following the race-riots and social welfare liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s, increasing numbers of middle class Americans withdrew from the macrosociety to affluent enclaves away from the danger and decay of the inner cities. These communities of choice allowed for the preservation of a radical individualism that finds not a greater reliance of the state but an increasing flight from it.

Perhaps this is the version of contemporary self-sufficiency that E.D. should be excoriating. While it may be true, as E.D. says, that this type of individualism works at cross-purposes to community, it's of the larger macrosocial community, not that of the family and family-neighborhood enclaves. In turn, it's fundamentally illogical that growing the state will work to solve whatever "crisis of individualism" E.D.'s trying to elucidate. Big goverment kills liberty. If people feel threatened by creeping socialism and unescapable high taxes to pay for the entitlements of the ever-increasing left-wing hordes, they'll flee to where freedom's to be found. It's no wonder that many radical nihilists today are mocking and demonizing those like Glenn Beck or Glenn Reynolds for offering scenarios of American anarchy or of an emerging "John Galt" revolt of the productive classes.

E.D. Kain's groping for some ideological-philosophical justifcation for a left-libertarian consensus. But as Matt Welch noted the other day, this left-classical liberal alliance is dead on arrival. E.D. and his allies keep hammering the point because they want to be "progressive" without being hammered for their ideological capriciousness (if not outright cowardice). So far, these guys are striking out badly.

Taxing the Affluent Rich

Dr. Hussein Biobrain, in his manifest frustration, has now bailed out on our "debate" over the Democratic Party's class warfare. He does, however, have a new post up that's typical of the puerile fare you'll find there, "Upper-Class Idiots." As always, I'm blown away at the explicit demonization of working professionals with regards to the Obama administration's plans to soak high-income earners. The progressive numbskulls at Lawyers, Guns and Money even have a post up entitled, "Working Hard or Hardly Working?" And here's the key passage:

Personal income levels are excellent proxies for measuring the extent to which people are "working hard" in this sense of hard work ... In other words, our society on average consists of people who "work hard" who make lots of money and people who don't. Higher marginal taxes on high earners thus have a net effect of moving wealth from relatively hard working people to relatively lazy people.

If you think about it for five seconds it's actually totally implausible that the correlation between "hard work" in this sense and increasing income is even mildly positive. To believe it is, you have to believe that highly paid high status professionals hate their work far more than working class people who are doing dangerous, physically taxing, and/or extremely boring work for low pay.

I'm going to be writing more on all of this, since we're in the middle of huge national debate over individualism versus statism. But in the meantime check out this episode from Tigerhawk TV, "Who Are These "Rich' People?" Tigerhawk, in his reasonable and eminently considerate fashion, explains how the "working affluent" not only work much harder than those at lower income levels, but are MORE PRODUCTIVE overall, and that taxing individuals and families like this will indeed put the final nail in the coffin of the current economy:

There's another point I'll mention here on all of this. The leftists have latched onto the idea that the "tea parties" against the administration's are simply about taxes and outrage "that someone else might get a bigger piece of pie than them." But's the protests and the backlash against taxing the "working affluent" are all of a piece. As Paul Hsieh notes at Pajamas Media:

America’s future is at stake. Do we want to enlarge an already-bloated welfare state that tramples on our rights and strangles the economy? Or do we want a limited government that protects our rights and allows individuals to prosper and thrive?

These are the questions that the Democratic-leftists will have to address as they continue to push for the biggest expansion of government in American history.

Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova

I kept visiting over at Robert Stacy McCain's during CPAC weekend to see if he'd get the new installment of Rule 5 Sunday posted. McCain was obviously too busy schmoozing with the young conservative (and hot!) cognoscenti to pump out the next edition of Robert's Rules of Disorder.

The visits weren't wasted, in any case. One of McCain's Rule 5 updates featured a link to the page of the Badger Blog Alliance, which hosts a picture of IndyCar racer Danica Patrick and a link to her recent swimsuit gig with Sports Illustrated.

I'll tell you ... I still consider myself a pretty hip guy, but I'm out of the loop on Sports Illustrated's annual extravaganza. I do take my time at the bookstore or supermarket when I see the latest edition, but I guess - being married and all - I don't get quite as excited at the latest releases of the scantily-clad supermodels frolicking in the waves for photo-spreads at far-flung tropical locations.

Back in the day, of course, I was a connoisseur of Paulina Porizkova's modeling - and you can see why above! It all started with Porizkova's first Sports Illustrated cover feature in 1984. If a guy can be swept off his feet, well, that's me! She posed for the magazine's cover the following year as well, and she became a pop-culture phenomenon when she married Ric Ocasek of The Cars. In the mid-1990s, Porizkova reached something of a professional high-point when she became the face of Estée Lauder's prestige cosmetics line. Shortly after that I think she faded from the public spotlight a bit, but I'll never forget her - never, ever!

In any case, I'll have more Rule 5 reminiscing later, and be sure to check back here this weekend for the next "full metal" edition.

Majority Says Iraq War a Success, Poll Finds

Daily Kos is pumping up the results from the new Wall Street Journal poll, which finds Americans optimistic about the direction of the country, and confident in President Barack Obama's leadership abilities.

But one of the most interesting findings is that a majority says the U.S. was successful in Iraq:

There was widespread approval of Mr. Obama's plans for Iraq, with 80% approving of his move to pull out most U.S. troops within 19 months. Two in three Americans said the U.S. has accomplished as much as can be expected in Iraq, compared with 27% who said more can be done.

And the public is mostly satisfied with the results, with 53% saying the war has been successful, up from 43% in July 2008. Sixteen percent say it is very likely there will be an all-out civil war in Iraq when U.S. troops leave, compared with 40% who thought that in June 2007.

Read the rest of the poll findings here. Most of this is good news from the Democrats, certainly.

But the results on Iraq have to constitute one of the greatest partisan travesties in the history of American foreign policy. I mean think about it: Here we have Daily Kos now boasting about the success of the war on its front page, yet just months before the Bush administration committed to a new counterinsurgency plan in Iraq, Daily Kos was adamantly announcing that the United States had alreadly lost the war, "It's Not Defeat, Dammit!":

STOP TALKING ABOUT "DEFEAT" IN IRAQ. Hear it from your own thereisnospoon. Say it with me slowly, loud and clear.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Defeat. In. Iraq.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Victory. In. Iraq.

Get over it. Stop using those words because they are MEANINGLESS.

While I appreciate insightful diaires like L C Johnson's, talking about our "defeat" in Iraq is not only misguided and incoherent, it plays into Republican frames about how "we want America to lose", and how we're "defeatists in the face of the enemy." Which is bullshit - because I, like every other patriotic Democratic American, want America to come out a winner every time.

And it's not just diarists here. The James Baker Commission just came out and Ruled Out Victory in Iraq. Whatever that means.

The reason that terms like "victory" and "defeat" in Iraq are meaningless is because you can't "win" an OCCUPATION. Wars you can win or lose; occupations can only end in withdrawal or annexation.

We can no more "win" or "lose" in Iraq that the British could have "won" or "lost" in India, or the French could have "won" or "lost" in Algeria.

That really has to be the biggest "epic fail" post I've ever read.

And to think, just yesterday Daily Kos was still dissing the deployment, promoting an even more rapid acceleration than the 18-month withdrawal plan President Obama announced this week. The Democratic-left has for the past six years agitated, demonstrated, lobbied, and voted for an American defeat in Iraq. Now websites like Daily Kos - and no doubt the rest of the hard-left cadres of the "party of defeat" - are pumping up such triumphant poll findings as if these are some confirmation of leftist wisdom on the war. This is truly a disgrace.

What can you do, I guess? The most signal achievement of the Bush administration - preventing another Vietnam - has resulted in a strange historical twist of not only helping to elect a Democratic administration in the first place, but in propping up the new aministration in foreign policy as well.

Of course, just in case anything goes wrong - like a new round of terrorist attacks at home - leftists are already preparing talking points to blame Republicans for "intelligence" failures.

In any case, stay tuned ...

And here's a big thanks, irrespective of politics, to America's service personnel in all of wars abroad.)

Jim Cramer: "Obama Destroying Life Saving of Millions"

Nice Deb has video of CNBC's Jim Cramer, who says "I just want some sign that Obama realizes the market is totally falling apart, and that his agenda has a big hand in that happening ..."

It turns out the White House is not digging it, with reference to Cramer's appearance on the Today Show, "White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President":

NBC's Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President."

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," said Gibbs. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the back-up for those are too."

Man, you've got to love this. The Democrats are pushing back against the media now that they've got the power, and the markets are voting no against the big-government power grab.

Allahpundit's got a longer video, plus an analysis of the White House's response - and he ends his post with the damaging quote from Cramer: "This is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president."

Watch the whole thing, here. More commentary at Memeorandum.

Progressives to Push Limbaugh as GOP Leader

Today's Los Angeles Times reports that the Democratic National Committe is coordinating a smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh and the GOP:

The Obama White House has begun advancing an aggressive political strategy: persuading the country that real power behind the Republican Party is not the GOP leaders in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, but rather provocative radio talk show king Rush Limbaugh.

President Obama himself, along with top aides and outside Democratic allies, have been pushing the message in unison ....

As the White House works to make Limbaugh the face of the GOP, it is getting some outside assistance.

A tax-exempt group that supports progressive causes - Americans United for Change - is helping finance a TV ad that claims Republican leaders are beholden to the radio host. The ad closes with Limbaugh saying, "I want him to fail."

The quote was part of a comment in which Limbaugh said of Obama: "If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism - as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"

Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, said the group had discussed the ad campaign with the Democratic National Committee. Woodhouse is joining the DNC next week as its communications director. Asked if the White House was notified about the ad, Woodhouse said: "They certainly are aware - I'm sure they're aware of what we're doing."

The website for Americans United for Change is here, via Memeorandum.

The Democrats better keep doubling-up their efforts. All of this progressive coordination is taking place just as a movement of Barack Obama "buyer's remorse" is kicking in. See, "Obama’s Sorry Cultists."

Fats Limbaugh Trailer Trash, or Who is John Galt?

Before I boggle readers' minds with TBogg's post and thread on conservative trailer-park trash, let me preface with this letter to the editor at today's Los Angeles Times, from Kay Santos of Diamond Bar:

I have employed about 50 people during the last 20 years, and my family's taxable income is about $300,000. In order to avoid paying a higher percentage of taxes on all of my income, I will decrease output, lay off some staff and still end up keeping the same amount.

I have no incentive to hire people or expand my business, because the more I make, the more President Obama will take to expand government. This discourages expansion of the private sector. It will backfire with disastrous consequences for all.

It is repulsive that Obama is being allowed to take this country backward by pickpocketing the very people who run the private sector through their energy, money and creativity.

I'm frankly surprised that the editorial mandarins at the Times let Ms. Santos' comments get through. We don't have enough common sense these days when it comes to the brutalizing policies of today's collectivist left, and God forbid the likes of Ms. Santos to spoil the zeitgeist.

Which brings me back to the infamous demonic ridicule machine, TBogg of Firedoglake, and his fever-swamp snark-offering du jour, "You're in the High Rent District." It turns out TBogg's done a little excavation at Michelle Malkin's comment threads, and he's comes up with what appear to be some beauties from the "high percentage of these high-earning go-getting producers" who habituate the place:

Approximately 2% of the American households make more than $250,000 a year and (you may find this hard to believe) a very high percentage of these high-earning go-getting producers spend their days commenting over at Michelle Malkin's place... when they're not busy flying their Lear jets up to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun.

TBogg's Darwinized (or "Galticized", be that as it may) a surviving selection of the best of the best of alleged "trailer-park" commentary at Makin's, so be sure to read the whole post.

What's interesting from my perspective - as an evil "BusHitler" battalion commander of the blogospheric right - are the comments from TBogg's own thread.

Here's this one, from "Moondancer":

The notion of the two-percenters as victims is gonna be a hard sell, but not as hard as the Fats Limbaugh trailer trash as patriots.

And this one, from "Crosstimbers":

They should leave a map for their descendants, so that a thousand years from now, when the nation returns to 1980’s sanity, the offspring can find the hidden cache of Mary Kay products and pick up the life intended by the founders, as if nothing happended.

How about one more, from "Thingwarbler":

If those are the “successful entrepreneurs” who need to be rewarded with mucho moolah for all their brilliant contributions to the capitalist society, then we are well and truly fucked. If, on the other hand, they’re really just the 22nd Gardening & Homeschooling Brigade of the 101st Keyboarders, then it all makes so much more sense.

Well, that's a pretty good sample from the progressive muck, but who knew that some of these folks were previously pulling down "five-figures"?

Of course, over at the academic blog Crooked Timber, political scientist Henry Farrell, of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, reflects a bit on the emerging revolt of the John Galt-ers:

I understand that “Dr. Helen” was at C-PAC, putting forward a strong case for ‘going Galt’ on a farm till the nasty Democrats go away. Wasn’t clear whether the world would be denied the intellectual fruits of the Instapundit as part of a package deal or not.

I guess Henry's not a fan of Glenn Reynolds or Pajamas Media, so I guess that's going to scuttle my chances of being included in the esteemed directory of political science bloggers over at The Monkey Cage, where Henry's a co-blogger. I guess "Randian Warmongers!", or at least old-fashioned neocons, need not apply.

See also, "Going John Galt."

**********

UPDATE: Malkin-a-lanche!: "Letter of the day: Disgusted in Diamond Bar."

Terrorism in Pakistan: Follow Up to Mumbai?

The New York Times is reporting that the murders today of eight members of Sri Lanka's national cricket team have all the markings of a Mumbai-style terrorist attack:

A dozen gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan national cricket team and its police escort in a brazen commando-style operation in the city of Lahore on Tuesday, killing six police officers and wounding at least six cricketers before fleeing in motorized rickshaws, the Lahore police chief and a Sri Lankan official said.

The attackers ambushed a bus carrying the cricket team, using assault rifles, grenades and anti-tank missiles. Some Pakistani officials likened the audacity of the assault to the attacks in Mumbai, India, in November.

Two bystanders were also killed and six officers were wounded, according to the police.

The attack struck not only a major Pakistani city but also the country’s most popular sport — a game followed with near-obsessive fascination by many in the region. “Cricketers have never been attacked in Pakistan despite what the situation has been in the country,” Rashid Latif, a former Pakistan cricket captain, told Reuters. “Today is a black day for Pakistan cricket and a black day for Pakistan.”

For a nation seething with conflict between the authorities and militants linked to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and accused by some of its neighbors of harboring terrorists, the blow to Pakistan’s international prestige and self-image from Tuesday’s attack seemed likely to be profound and enduring — certainly, as far as its sporting ties to the rest of the world were concerned ....

Two Sri Lankan players — Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavitana — were being treated for bullet wounds in a hospital but were in stable condition, said a spokesman for the Sri Lankan High Commission. Team captain Mahela Jayawardene and four other players sustained minor injuries, and British assistant coach Paul Farbrace and Ahsan Raza, an umpire, were also injured, The A.P. said. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, described the shooting as a terrorist attack, and said there were similarities with the bloody assaults in Mumbai, India, in November.

“They had heavy weapons,” said Mr. Taseer, as he arrived at the scene. “These were the same methods and the same sort of people as hit Mumbai.”

At least 163 people died in Mumbai when a squad of militants, many of them in their 20s and trained as commandos, attacked targets across the city. Senior members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani militant group active in Kashmir, have been arrested by Pakistan in connection with the attacks.

There's more at the link.

See also the debate, at the video, on Pakistan's border militants from Sunday's panel discussion on Fareed Zakaria's GPS. Fawaz Gerges couldn't get far enough away from the notion that the Taliban sponsors and practices terror, with a rebuttal from Christopher Hitchens.

**********

Related: See Hitchens', "Don't Say a Word: A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith," via Memeorandum.

Internal Battles on the Right

I've forgotten the exact essay by now, but sometime back I wrote that I wasn't going to battle against fellow conservatives. As an early McCain supporter last year, I'm still seeing sore wounds from some of my fellow partisans who were zinged repeatedly in my posts (or let's just say that Ed Morrissey's not linking to my blog, not to mention Mike's America).

I mention this in light of my comments yesterday, in "Rush Limbaugh: Leader of the Republican Party?," and some of the responses therein.

So let me be clear: I'm not criticizing Rush Limbaugh. I watched his speech to CPAC on Saturday and I was getting my own "rush" of adrenaline, endorphine, or some other "right-on" chemical-emotional reaction while listening to the guy. The big "El Rushbo" hit all the right notes, chumming the waters of both left and right as no other contemporary commentator can do. My only point, and this would seem uncontroversial, is that Limbaugh is by no means the leader of the GOP, which should be clear from the title of my entry. On the other hand, it's pretty much a slam dunk that Limbaughs' the leader of today's conservative movement. He's consistently opposed big government and concessions to the "bipartisan" Titanic that's gotten us into so much trouble these last few years.

Oh sure, I criticized Rush last year and his supporters as "Rushbots" because some of the attacks on McCain's campaign were dishonest and frankly irrational.

But I'm not criticizing Rush today. Conservative have really no time to be creating internal enemies. I'm not so naive to say that we won't have our battles, but the faster a "new right" consensus emerges that amounts to something of a guiding agenda for the movement, the better off we'll be.

Jonah Goldberg hits on this today in his essay, "The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh." I thought the piece was pretty unoriginal at first, considering how Goldberg was going off on the Democrats and their attacks on conservative talk radio as "the font of all evil." Really? Folks need to look no farther than the continuing debate on the "Fairness Doctrine" to understand that the rising tide of tea-party conservatism is the biggest threat to the left's totalitarian agenda - and thank God for that!

So I was pleased when Goldberg turned his focus to the political right, where the real challenges to a Republican revival are located:

The more interesting war on Limbaugh comes from the right. My National Review colleague John Derbyshire has written a thoughtful article for the American Conservative disparaging the "lowbrow conservatism" of talk radio. His brush is a bit too broad at times. Some right-wing talkers, such as Bill Bennett and Dennis Prager, can be almost professorial. Michael Savage, meanwhile, sounds like the orderlies are about to break through the barricades with straitjacket in hand. Derbyshire is nonetheless right that conservatism is top-heavy with talk-radio talent, giving the impression the right is deficient in other areas and adding to the shrillness of public discourse.

Another point of attack comes from "reformist" conservative writers, such as blogger Ross Douthat of the Atlantic and former Bush speechwriter David Frum. They argue that conservatism is too attached to talk-show platitudes and Reagan kitsch. They want conservatives and Republicans to become more entrepreneurial, less reflexively opposed to government action. Hence, the New Reformers object to Limbaugh's role as an enforcer of ideological conformity. What's good for Limbaugh, many of them argue, guarantees that the GOP will become a powerless rump party only for conservative true believers.

I'm dubious about that, but I do have a suggestion that would help on both fronts. Bring back "Firing Line." William F. Buckley Jr., who died almost exactly a year ago, hosted the program for PBS for 33 years. He performed an incalculable service at a time when conservatives were more associated with yahoos than they are today. He demonstrated that intellectual fluency and good manners weren't uniquely liberal qualities. More important, the "Firing Line" debates (models of decorum) demonstrated that conservatives were unafraid to examine their own assumptions or to battle liberal ones.

Now, again, let me indicate right away where I stand on this, since I might be seen as more on the intellectual side of things (and hence a soft and squishy conservative like David Brooks, David Frum, or Ross Douthat). Recall that I'm neoconservative, and that means I take tradition and values as key to any sustainable outlook for the right. I also see foreign policy as not just another issue within the party platform, but as a problem that defines the identity of someone who claims to stand up for American values. Hence, while I'll engage the Brooks' or Douthats, I'll have no truck with folks like Daniel Larison who might as well be Democrats.

Conservatives need to ask themselves about the big picture: What do we want? Getting back in power is important, but should we acquiesce to what many recognize is likely a permanent expansion of the welfare-entitlement state? Folks decry the notion of "moderation," but how do we define that? Is former President Bush a "moderate" because he grew the government under his watch? As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out many times, the costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq account for much of the increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, and while the administration okay'd the expansion of Medicare, Bush spent all of 2005 campaigning for Social Security reform which would have sought to move the country toward privatization, and hence a shift toward shrinking governmental dependence and fostering an "ownership" society.

I don't have all the answers to these questions, but I do know that conservatives won't have to worry about the Democrats as long as we're looking to slit each other's throats.

Here's what Paul Ibrahim has to say about moderates:

It is non-conservative Republicans who have gotten the party to where it is today. It is the massive spending and government enlargement that have forced a significant part of the base to abandon the GOP. It is the pork projects and the related corruption of “moderates” that have dragged down the Republican brand. The people who have decidedly not been the downfall of the Republican Party are its conservatives.

So, let's talk more about this. What is a non-conservative Republican? Is it a neocon "warmonger" like me, or a "soft intellectual" like David Brooks? Or is it a wonkish Harvard graduate like Ross Douthat?

I know where my loyalties lie, and that's with regular folks and bedrock values. In contrast, the Democratic Party is out to destroy this country, and when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted that nihilist agenda to fail, I said "hallelujah"!

We need more people to speak clearly like this, but we also need more people to welcome truthsayers like Geert Wilders into the spotlight as well. And apparently, that wasn't happening at CPAC.

So let's get it together. We have to speak truth to this leftist agenda, both home and abroad. By all means, yes, let's debate and refiine our ideas, but we should never forget that conservatism is what's going to save this country, and what the "next right" agenda requires is a little more attention to defining conservatism in the age of Obama. We should be perfectly happy to go back to Goldwater's ideas to do it, but we should also remember that even the "wisdom of the ages" gets an update now and then.

Update on Obama's Class War

Readers may have paid a little more than passing attention to this "debate" I've been having with Dr. Hussein Biobrain. I put the scare quotes up there since there's really no debating this guy. You can make the most rigorous argument, something with which no one in her right mind would disagree, and Dr. Hussein will come back with some unhinged rant only a hopeless denialist would offer.

That's the case once again with the latest post on this exchange, "Again with the Class Warfare." There's no need to even cite any passages, because this is the kind of guy who will invent a new reality upon every entry, since he lacks the dignity or integrity to simply admit that someone's offered a more powerful chain of logic. Folks who read Dr. Hussein will shake their heads, especially since the blather that's proposed is offered as "serious" Democratic Party talking points.

Here I'll just link to David Brooks' essay this morning, "A Moderate Manifesto," and his passage on the class warfare agenda being foisted by President Obama and his extreme, take-no-prisoners fiscal policy:

The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.

Keep in mind that this is coming from Brooks, who was recently critical of Bobby Jindal and the GOP rebuttal to Obama's presidential address. Note too that Brooks is not loved by Rush Limbaugh and heartland conservatives, so it'd be hard to attack Brooks' identification of Democratic class warfare as pure "winguttery."

Nope, the fact is that Democratic class warfare is a self-evident truth that even moderate "intellectual" conservatives have no problem attacking. But stayed tuned for another iteration of denialism from the freak Dr. Hussein.

More at Memeorandum.