The Coming Persecution

There's a lot of talk online this morning on the fate of religious observance in the United States.

I'll have more on this below, but what's striking from a political perspective is how giddily the collapse of evangelism is welcomed by the secular-progressive left. Andrew Sullivan, in particular, has a number of posts up cheering all of this, for example, "The Young and the Godless," and "A Coming Evangelical Collapse?"

Sullivan blames these trends on ... wait for it! ... "Christianism," of course.

Pamela Leavey also strikes up the band at the news:

I’ll be glad to see the Evangelicals have far less say in the politics of our country. Already with Obama’s lift on Bush’s stem cell research ban, we’re seeing the movement of a more secular America, which is the way it should be in my opinion.

This is in response to Michael Spencer on the collapse of evangelism, at the Christian Science Monitor (via Memeorandum). Spencer explains some of the causes:

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

Robert Stacy McCain adds this on Bible teaching, from his own experience:

When I was a kid growing up in the Baptist church, "Sword Drill" was a big event.

"Sword Drill" took its name from Ephesians 6:17, where Christians are commanded to employ "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." So us kids were literally drilled in Bible memorization. I was by no means a good student, but some of it took, and the constant repetition of Bible study engrained in my mind - as I am sure it did with others - a solid core of biblical knowledge. It also developed a mindset that the Bible was an authoritative source.

Suzanna Logan has more on this, and her piece gets to the heart of just what it is the secular left hates about evangelical observanc:

As William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told Lou Dobbs, "The three most dreaded words are 'thou shalt not.'” He goes on to say it’s not that these people (who claim not to be religious in the survey) are atheists, it’s just that they don’t want to be told what to do with their lives. Newsflash: you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Anyone who wants to “believe in God” without accepting that there are some “shall” and “shall nots” that go along with the territory is like a person who knows he has a million dollars in the bank but refuses to use it because he doesn’t want his life to change for the better ....

I daresay if churches would begin to work a little more “thou shalt not” into their Sunday morning sessions, there would be a night and day (or would it be heaven and hell?) difference in our churches.

MacRanger worries little over increasing secularization, for a reckoning is coming, and there is comfort and reassurance of Goodness in faith:

As we believe Christ was and is God, we believe that he will return one day and right this planet, whether people believe it or not, or even like it or not and rule. We who have trusted in his name will rule with Him, indeed the Bible tells us that we will judge the nations and even angels. The point is that in the end - through Christ - we win, because He wins. It’s as sure as the dawn.

Read the rest of MacRanger. He predicts a persecution.. And there'll be a reckoning in the church, a purge of "the false believers, those who say they are, but are not."

Debating Chas Freeman

If readers aren't up on the controversy over the Obama adminisration's appointment of Chas Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, Jake Tapper's got a good roundup on the topic. And Ben Smith updates with the latest news on the "outreach" by Freeman allies to wavering congressional members.

But the best I've seen on all this yet is Sister Toldjah's post, "Rebuttals to the “Chas Freeman is a Realist” Arguments." Notice ST's smackdown of Freeman apologist Andrew Sullivan:

The issue of Chas Freeman has become so contentious that it has seen staunch conservatives like myself agreeing, in part, with staunch liberals like Jon Chait and Marty Peretz in terms of their disappointment with the Obama administration over this decision. But, as expected, inevitably there would be diehard Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall who would link to every piece they could in defense of Chas Freeman supposedly being a victim of some sort of “vast neocon conspiracy” (who knew that liberals like Chait and Peretz were “neocons”?) while passionately writing that Freeman was/is a “realist” and “free thinker” - the kind we “really need” as the head of the NIC. Oh really?

Not so fast, writes Martin Kramer in two separate pieces (here and here) about Freeman’s alleged “realism” that you should consider must-reads. It puts an exclamation point on all you’ve read about Freeman so far from those who oppose his selection. There are some liberals who would travel to the ends of the Earth to defend the Obama administration, but fortunately more than just a couple oppose Freeman and aren’t going to stay silent about it (like that mega-neocon Senator Chuck Schumer).

As a sidenote, I found this paragraph from Sullivan’s defense to be quite amusing:

I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman’s realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that someone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive.

Right. Reasonable questioning by liberals and conservatives as to whether or not the man the Obama admin has picked to serve in one of the most critical intelligence positions in America is “bullying.” But being creepily obsessive about whether or not Trig Palin was/is “really” Sarah Palin’s son or Bristol Palin’s, and hypocritically bullying John McCain over a POW story he’s told about a cross in the sand a million times over is apparently a-ok to Sully.

Got it.

Gay Culture and Political Correctness

James Webb, of Brainrage, has asked of me repeatedly: "I'm just curious as to your views on gay marriage if one of your own boys wanted the same rights that many gays are now denied by yourself and others of your ilk."

I've yet to respond to such questioning because of the implicit reverse-bigotry of the underlying assumption: "Donald, you're a homophobe and I'd like to see how you'd handle it if one of your own kids came out as homosexual"?

Putting aside James' obnoxiousness, the short answer is that my kids are free to do as they please on matters of love and marriage; and if they choose or find that they are gay, I'll love them just as much as I do now, and I'll support them in whatever they want to do. I will do this - as my current political inclination insists - without changing my views on same-sex marriage as a social institution, because, as I've suggested repeatedly, I don't consider gay marriage a civil right and I'm bothered by the idea that a tiny minority of the U.S. population can use the politics of grievance to bully a traditional majority into changing a longstanding cultural and religious practice that is the basis for social stability and spiritual unity. My logic is explained in more detail in my recent essay, ""No Faggots, Dykes or Trannies"?"

I raise the issue tonight in light of the controversy surrounding Rod Dreher's comments today on the tragic small-town murder story at Dallas Morning News.

I WANT TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE HERE: Dreher screwed up big time in writing this post. He essentially posed a moral trade-off between murder and bisexuality, an unconscionable lapse, since the taking of human life is morally incomparable in its criminal depravity. Tom Maguire, at Just One Minute, rightly called out Dreher for his infelicity, if not outright stupidity. I reject Dreher's comparison - his COMPARISON - altogether, so again, I WANT THE POINT TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE!

My interest here is the response to Dreher across the leftosphere, and what this response tells us about the left's politics of grievance and political correctness. Dreher began by rightly noting the "Horrible story in today's Dallas Morning News." The dad who survived the attack lamented his daughter's alleged participation in the killings, while adding that in her peer group it is "was almost cool to be bisexual." But Dreher then suggests that "the killings aren't what shocked me about this story. What got me was ... there's a bisexual culture ... among the teenagers?"

And there you go: That set off the attacks from the left-wing blogs. Note that even in a separate context, Dreher would have been attacked as a troglodyte by the gay-rights hordes for criticizing "bisexual culture." But by admitting his prejudices in the context of the killings opened him to a mercilessly opportunistic (denial-of-service) assault by Andrew Sullivan as "clinical."

Amanda Marcotte joined the lynch mob, excoriating Dreher, saying "I suspect that Dreher, in his heart of hearts, thinks that you spend more time in hell for violating patriarchal gender roles than for killing."

What is it with people and gender roles, anyway? But besides that, Marcotte herself is notorious for politically incorrect attacks on the Roman Church's abortion policies, saying at one point, "the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics." Thus, for Marcotte, it's unacceptable for Rod Dreher to repudiate a culture of bisexuality in the context of a murder story, but she's completely fine with attacking the Catholic Church's pro-life stance when those very policies would in fact save lives!

But for the full pallette of left-wing, politically-correct grievance-mongering, check out Lawyers, Guns and Money's attack on Dreher:

The nature of the typical experience of non-heterosexual adolescents in our schools and our society is hardly a secret. The ostracization and bullying of those suspected to be non-heterosexual takes an enormous pyschological toll, and has life and death consequences, as evidenced higher rates of depression and suicide amongst non-heterosexual youth. They typically live in fear: fear that something is horribly wrong with them, fear of being rejected by their friends and family, and fear of violence. But: in one small town, at least for some non-heterosexual youth, there's a chance this status quo might be changing. For anyone whose moral worldview contains any compassion, changes to this horrific status quo are a sign of hope. For Dreher, it's the precise opposite.

Lord knows that the U.S. is far from overcoming homophobia, but Dreher's not advocating violence against gays. He's worried about the moral decline of society, and he vows at his post that he's "not going to give my children over to this culture, if I can help it." Dreher's crime here is his naiveity, even stupidity, for not realizing he'd be excoriated not just for offering these views, but for offering them in the most indefensible way, in a situation of human tragedy all around.

Dreher is not wrong, however to worry about the moral safety of his own kids. And if he believes that a "culture of bisexuality" goes against his values and his family's measure of what's morally right, he's entitled to those views. Unfortunately, Dreher was so hammered by the demon trolls at his post, he offered three updates to his essay and backtracked as far as he could, while still failing to actually save much face in the process.

So note something here: This is how the left wins. This is the culture of demonization that has grown to such a scale of heinous enormity that people of good faith and values are afraid to openly discuss their beliefs. Traditionalists will be targeted and blackballed, which is all the more funny since leftists don't make MORALLY PURSUASIVE aguments. They BULLY and make FALSE HISTORICAL anologies to the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow, while gays and lesbians today are a protected class under U.S. constitutional law. (But remember, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee gays the right to marry, much less a right to be free from other forms of discrimination. And while the Supreme Court, in fact, has recently interpreted the 14th Amendment as prohibiting disparate treatment against gays, it has yet to decide a gay marriage case; and no one can argue that such a right would be envisioned in a jurisprudence of original intent.)

So, back to James Webb: The possibility of my boys coming out as gay will have little affect on my substantive positions on gay rights. I love my kids, and I'll be there for them if life takes them down that road. But I also love people, irrespective of sexual orientation. Arguing in favor of a traditional conception of marriage does not make me a bigot. Even poor old Rod Dreher doesn't come off as one. He just had the unfortunate chance to be caught in the crosshairs of a nihilist-left hypocritcal jihad against moral conservatism.

Progressive Republicans

Meghan McCain is in the news today with her essay and comments on Ann Coulter.

Ms. McCain minces no words, saying, "I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time."

Ann Coulter, of course, is a right-wing shock jock (or "gyno-jock," if that's more politically-correct), and Ms. McCain's attack on her is clearly a strawman.

But the slam on Coulter is the peripheral issue here: What's important is Ms. McCain's message on today's GOP. She argues, for example, that "President Obama has successfully established himself as the hippest politician around," and "being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond."

Ouch! And furthermore:

I consider myself a progressive Republican ....

I’m often criticized for not being a “real” Republican, and I have been called a RINO—Republican In Name Only—in the past. Many say I am not “conservative enough,” which is something that I am proud of. It is no secret that I disagree with many of the old-school Republican ways of thinking. One of the biggest issues from which I seem to drift from the party base is in my support of gay marriage. I am often criticized for previously voting for John Kerry and my support of stem-cell research. For the record, I am also extremely pro-military and a big supporter of the surge and the Iraq war ....

I am sure most extreme conservatives and extreme liberals would find me a confusing, walking contradiction. But I assure you, there are many people out there just like me who represent a new, younger generation of Republicans. It took me almost two years of campaigning across this country and hanging out, on a daily basis, with some of the most famous and most intelligent Republicans to fall in love with the Republican Party. If it took that much time and exposure for me to join the party, how can GOP leaders possibly expect to reach young supporters by staying the course they have been on these past eight years?

Coming from the daugther of the 2008 GOP nominee, this critique should be given some consideration. This meme is also important in the context of Ms. McCain's earlier argument that Republicans are simply not as tech-savvy in info-mobilization and mass-technology politics.

Certainly, to me, the notion of "progressive Republcans" is a contraction in terms. Even Edmund Burke said conservatives must adapt to change, but change must follow tradition and presumption, and society can't change for change's sake. I get this feeling from Ms. McCain and others that they favor progressive policies as a matter of electoral expedience - even "hipness" - not according to whether such change best advances and protects humankind's most imporant spiritual and material interests. Does "progressive conservatism" truly extend and preserve freedom? Does this new GOP paradigm get back to the constitutional roots of limited government? Indeed, can the Republican Party survive as an electoral alternative if it simply apes the popularity and social mores of the current party-in-power, a true progressive apparatus that's likely to destroy America's historic foundations of individualism and egalitarianism in the private sphere?

There are a number of commentators making a similar case to Meghan McCain's (some more intellectually honest than others, ahem...). On top of that, we've got the news today that Nancy Reagan is backing President Obama's stem-cell policy. We also have the story that the number of Americans identifying themselves as Christian has dropped substantially over the last generation. I'm sure I could find other examples of cultural and generational changes that are likely to pose problems for the GOP in terms of forming stable, long-term winning coalitions.

I'm waiting to hear back from Robert Stacy McCain about all of this. McCain's been making the case that Barack Obama's economic policies will fail, and Republicans will be positioned sooner rather than later for a return to power, in Congress and perhaps the executive. But a lasting Republican electoral model needs to be more than about protecting the interests of "economic man." The roots of conservatism are found in traditions and institutions that limit governmental power and unlock the potential of the individual.

All this talk about "progressive Republicans" is unappealing, if not a little worrying. Ann Coulter's publicity gimmicks are the least of the conservative movement's problems problems right now.

Constitutional Conservatism

Peter Berkowitz offers his advice for the divided partisans of today's political right, in his essay, "Constitutional Conservatism":

A constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving, and extending its blessings. The American Constitution that it seeks to conserve presupposes natural freedom and equality; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; defines government’s proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; welcomes a diverse array of voluntary associations in part to prevent any one from dominating; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects and at the same time refines popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments to provide checks and balances. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy in America depend on weaving together rival interests and competing goods ....

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity, and strong national defense. They derive support from Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, as well as from Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and, in his most representative moments, John Stuart Mill — outstanding contributors to the conservative side of the larger liberal tradition. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. In the 1950s, they animated William F. Buckley Jr.’s critique of higher education in America in God & Man at Yale, an opening salvo in the making of the modern conservative movement. In the 1960s, they were central to Frank Meyer’s celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism, and they formed the backbone of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign for the presidency. In the 1980s, they inspired Ronald Reagan’s consolidation of conservatism. In the 1990s, they fueled Newt Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution.” And even though George W. Bush’s tumultuous eight years in the White House have left conservatives in disarray, these principles informed both his conception of compassionate conservatism and his aspiration to make the spread of liberty and democracy a crucial element of American foreign policy.

The article's worth a careful read, here.

I was impressed by how much Barry Goldwater's conservative vision animates Berkowitz's "constitutional conservatism." That vision melds political liberty and traditional morality as a guiding ethical program for society. Beyond this, Berkowitz's piece offers a good review of the conservative canon. He offers two bold statements for movement activists today: One, big government is here to stay, and that the right should stress "limited" goverment rather than "smaller" government as a winning tactic; second, and more controversially, Berkowitz suggests the right should reconcile to the sexual revolution, that, for example, premarital sex and institutionalized divorce are facts of contemporary American life, and conservatives court danger with an obssession toward rolling back the clock in this social arena.

Berkowitz provides a point-by-point manifesto at the conclusion. One point that's interesting is how the article essentially offers an endorsement of neoconservatism without actually mentioning neoconservtism. That is to say, the right can assume as a doctrinal notion that a strong and outward national security policy is the basis for the preservation of liberty and moral order at home. The discussion of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan illusrates that both libertarian politics and moral society depend on robust national security policies and leadership in the international realm.

The debate for conservatives is found then, essentially, outside of a forward, free-trading national security orientation; it is instead the search, on the one hand, for a proposed domestic governance model that can reconcile the rejuvenated demands for small-government activism amid the accession to power of a Democratic Party regime intent on the largest peacetime expansion of the state in American history. Backed by some polling data, the country's progressive left will be tempted to transform Democratic power into a patriarchal state-universalism, with government action, in virtually every sector of American life, sold as a public good necessitated by monumental market failure; there is also the call by Berkowitz, on the other hand, for a conservatism that accedes ground in the culture wars to accomodate a changing society while at the same time not abdicating personal liberty as a priority of a constitutionally decent and ethically vigorous political system.

As a nuanced intellectual argument, I can anticipate some strong reactions to Berkowitz, especially from small-g conservatives. Robert Stacy McCain, for example, has been hammering the commentators on the right who enabled a "national greatness" mindset that accelerated the growth of big government under GOP administrations. On this question I have lined up in agreeement with Berkowitz, although the evidence that government today can be trusted to preserve good government - limited government - in a time of crisis has been notably absent in the trillion dollar bailuot-mania currently the rage today. In this sense, a "rollback agenda" on the right actually might be good politics against a Democratic majority dismissive of any notions of limitations on state power.

And that brings me to the second avenue of Berkowitz's constitutional conservatism, the social sphere of sexual politics and the family. As he notes, "conservatives can and should continue to make the case for the traditional understanding of marriage with children at the center," but he then goes on to say that conservatives "should refrain from using government to enforce the traditional understanding."

This seems self-defeating, for the notion of a absolute social libertarianism in the family sphere provides an opening for the left to advance its secular-progressive agenda, which posits traditional family structures as archiac modes of hierarchy and domination (and in turn offers an alternative "multi-culti" family model that harms both individuals and society).

Despite all of this, Berkowitz makes good use of the various strands of conservative doctrine, and today's right-wing partisans would be wise to start shifting the debate on the Republican future to the realm of ideas and action instead of debating movement rock stars and the politics of "personalist" rivalry.

Can the Republicans Come Back?

Mike Warren over at Vandy Right argues that the Rush Limbaugh dust-up over the past week has been good for the GOP:

I want to take a quick step back and say how helpful and important this debate is for the Right. Some will definitely disagree, but I see this tug-of-war as the culmination of a whole lot of frustration with a great number of things on our side. Some are worried about how this looks to voters, and perhaps that Obama is winning his game; perhaps, perhaps, but before our side is ready for primetime, we gotta work out these real issues within our movement.

While Patrick Ruffini warns against unloading alleged conservative apostates off the stage too quickly:

Conservatives need to decide who we want to see succeed and who we want to see fail. We then need to calibrate our reactions to the inevitable missteps from either camp accordingly. If someone we want to succeed comes under attack, we hold our fire and close ranks - unless it's clear they've become a long-term liability. If it's someone we want to see fail - like Jim Bunning - we unload until they get off the stage.

Ruffini is of course talking about Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and Bobby Jindal, but he could have just as easily been refering to Patrick Frey or David Frum.

I'll be commenting more on this debate later, but for now I wanted to share Jay Cost's essay with readers, "Can the GOP Come Back?":

To listen to some Democrats, you'd think that George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican party, American conservatism, or both. Please. The fact is that the Republican party was around long before George W. Bush, and will be around long after him. Simply put, the GOP is bigger than Bush.

Consider the Republican platform of 1860. That document couched its demand for free soil in the language of individual liberty. It demanded frugal governance. It called for the protection of settlers against the government and the expansion of private property via the Homestead Act. It advocated high tariffs to advance American business, and government support for a transcontinental railroad to facilitate the development of the nation.

Obviously, specific policies have changed since then, but contemplate them from a broader perspective: individual liberty, opposition to wasteful spending, protection of private property, pro-business policies, and the development of infrastructure to enhance economic growth. This sounds a lot like 21st-century Republicanism, and it is helpful to remember that the party of today has a connection to the party of the past.

Republicanism is bigger than any one individual. The GOP has prospered for more than 150 years because the country has had use for its principles. The party will prosper in the future because the country will have use for them once again. This is despite the fact that the GOP has had its share of unpopular leaders. The same goes for the Democrats. The country has had continued use for the Democratic party despite the unpopularity of Presidents Wilson, Johnson, and Carter.

I've made similar points here, for example, when I suggest that the Republicans are likely to be in the wilderness for some time, since we're pretty much in an epochal period of political change right now. This is not to suggest that folks on the right throw up their hands. I'm simply noticing intense internecine backbiting largely from the shock and frustration of being out of power.

In any case, what I'm not seeing enough of is specific disussion of doctrine and ideas. So, if Mike Warren's point above is to have some deeper truth to it, the current debate we're having on the right is going to have to rise above "personalist" jockeying for leadership of the movement (Frum comes to mind here more so than does Limbaugh) into the realm of innovative proposals.

I'm particularly interested in clarifying the divisions on the right between small-government conservatives and neoconservatives (I hesistate to include David Brooks in the latter bunch, but some of his previous arguments are in play).

Note: While we're at it, take note of this smear against the GOP by Frank Schaeffer:

You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired - President Obama - to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

I sense a bit of "ligherworkerism" there, but that kind of sentiment's prevalent on both left and right (Schaeffer's a former Republican).

More later ...

Collectivized Rights

I mentioned previously that some of the commenters on the "going Galt" phenomenon had not actually read Atlas Shrugged. On the other hand, I noticed that a couple of entries into the debate have explained what "going Galt" is. For example, Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has "The Rationale for “Going Galt”. And Laura at Pursuing Holiness has "On Going Galt," which she defines as, "a conscious decision to produce less as a form of protest."

And boy has that idea enraged a lot of people on the left!

I read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago, but this week I've been skimming through my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness. Especially good is the chapter on "collectivized rights," which is available at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine—and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like “The Divine Right of Kings”—or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

The amorality of that collectivist mystique is particularly obvious today in the issue of national rights.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds?

Read the whole thing at the link.

Doug at Below the Beltway has a cool post from last year on the The Virtue of Selfishness, Obama Shrugged."

But see also Dr. Helen's post from this week, where she notes that Clemson University is hosting a summer conference on Atlas Shrugged.

Plus, Brian at Liberty Pundit has "Liberals Love To Assume." Brian's making a comeback to the blogosphere, so head on over there and say hello!

Conservative Grassroots Organizing

As Tom Blumer points out this afternoon, the media's giving very little coverage to the dramatic "tea party" protests taking place around the country.

While the Orange County Register covered yesterday's tax protest in Fullerton (with a crowd of 8,000 activists), you have to read conservative blogs like Michelle Malkin, Nice Deb, and Skye's Midnight Blue to really appreciate what's happening nationwide.

The size of the Fullerton rally caught some people off guard, but others see an opportunity:

I think we may have a movement here ... If we’re going to fix things, it’s got to start at the grass roots. The tea parties springing up across the country are an encouraging sign. And the Fullerton event appears to be the biggest yet in a growing popular backlash.

The backlash needs nurturing, as this letter from a reader at Right Wing News indicates:

Conservatives have historically been busy raising their families, working on careers, participating in religious activities and devoting the little free time they have to charitable works. We are not community organizers, agitators or activists. While we have been toiling with everyday life, expecting our elected officials to be doing the work we elected them to do, our liberal "friends" have been busy co-opting virtually every aspect of our lives--not just the obvious ones, like education and environment, but even going so far as to infiltrate and influence the policies of our churches and synagogues.

Anyone who pays attention to the news can see what is happening: our liberties, our savings, our values, our way of life are all being eroded at warp speed by the liberal juggernaut.

We can no longer sit back and hope the work is being done by others. To fight these fights on local, state and federal levels, we have to network with one another (young, old, retired, working, black, white, Christian, Jew - you get my drift), take on these issues and fight to restore our American Republic, which is fading with each passing day.

If we do not get involved, we are complicit in all the Obama Machine engenders.

Bracing Symbols of American Strength...

Maureen Dowd's praising First Lady Michelle Obama's fashion sense, suggesting that, "The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps."

Actually, I'd rather not get into a debate on the left's "deplorable evocation of the deplorable imagery of the slave as fit only for toting bales and birthing babies."

More interesting, frankly, would be a discussion of Alicia Keys' modelling of the first lady for Glamour magazine.

Hat Tip: Jammie Wearing Fool.

Rush Limbaugh Roundup!

I should probably quit blogging about Rush Limbaugh, considering my most recent iteration! But there's more good stuff going around, and I've even been picked up at Villanous Company for my analysis last January on the GOP's ideological balance.

Anyway, Jeff at Protein Wisdom's been hammering Patrick Frey (Patterico) over his attack on Rush, and Dan Collins has some quick links (and check out Jimmy at Sundries Shack in particular).

Anyway, Patterico's got a long response to all of this at Hot Air, "David Frum Does Not Speak for Me Any More Than Rush Limbaugh Does" (via Memeorandum):

When I choose leaders and spokesmen for my party and my political movement, I want clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness. In my view, David Frum — with his comments about Limbaugh’s bulk and personal life — showed pettiness. With his ambivalence about Clinton’s impeachment — not justified by any argument but made as an aside as if to curry favor with the elite — Frum lacks the integrity of a true conservative.

Rush has many of the above qualities — but when he calls liberals “deranged,” I think he lacks perspective. And when he said “I hope he fails,” I think he sacrificed clarity for controversy.

We can do better. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me. And neither does David Frum.

Kathy Shaidle summarizes my thoughts on this perfectly:

Patterico derides Frum for spinkling cautious modifiers throughout his writing to pacify the "cocktail party" set.

Then he chides Rush for going overboard and calling liberals "deranged" and not choosing his words carefully enough.

This leaves us with the conclusion that the only true conservative spokesman is ... Patterico!

Sheesh, then we really are out in the wilderness!

Where the Queers and the Lesbians Play...

Well, you've got to hand it to "The Other McCain"! The guy's a true conservative talent scout!

Exhibit A is Suzanna Logan, who's indeed proving herself to be an "A-List" blogger, and that's before the end of the first week!

Suzanna's post today adds a little musical flourish to my entry yesterday, ""No Faggots, Dykes or Trannies"?":

Oh, give me a home
Where the immigrants roam
Where the queers and the lesbians play
Where seldom is heard, a rational word
And the sky-high-taxes are not going awaaaaay.

You've got to love it!

And to be clear to the lefties, THIS IS HUMOR!

But hey, don't miss Steve Chapman's piece this morning on California's voter-approved prohibition on same-sex marriage, first passed in 2000: "Gay Marriage vs. Democracy":

Last summer, the state Supreme Court struck the law down on the ground that it violated the California Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

But Californians were not content to let the court substitute its judgment for theirs. In November, they approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, with a 52 percent majority. If the constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage, the people decided, the constitution needed correcting.

That should have been the end of the legal battle and the beginning of a political one, where gay rights have excellent prospects. After all, they have made steady progress on the issue, expanding their support from 39 percent of voters to 48 percent in just eight years. Given the trend, their chances of persuading a majority in the next few years look good -- if they were to focus on persuading the majority.

But this is a tedious and time-consuming task compared to trying to get the state Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people. So opponents of Proposition 8 chose the latter option after their defeat.

And for what end? Not so that gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony. They already have those - insofar as the state of California can provide them - thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name. This is not a fight over fundamental equality. It's a fight over nomenclature.

Of course, it's not just the question of fundamental rights, don't you know?

The LGBT community's moving forward on other pressing issues, including "hate crime recognition, adoption rights, immigration and asylum rights, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," to name a few."

You don't say!

David Frum: "I Feel Kind of Silly About Supporting the Iraq War"

UPDATE: Well, let me welcome Robert Stacy McCain's readers to the post! You've come at the perfect time! I've finally been exposed for the total academic blogging fraud that I am!

It turns out this piece has caught the attention of Repsac3 over at American Nihilist, who points out the error of my ways in his post, "Reading Skills." That's right, I've misquoted Frum here on Iraq, and Reppy's absolutely right to call me out, so I responded at the post:

Repsac3: You are not banned from my blog, so you don't have to comment anonymously. I'd prefer you just write your own posts like this one when you want to correct me, rather than pollute my blog posts with your obssessive gotchas.

But you're right here, for once. I misread Frum. So, you got me right in the heart. You win. I'm dead, and that's what you want, and I mean literally. You'd be dancing on my grave after the last shovel of dirt.

I'll post an update to my blog right now. I'm an idiot.

With that, you can declare victory over this stupid unqualified airhead of a professor. You're sleuthing has carried the day.

So, I'll be looking for your final victory post and you can move on to other childish conservatives who need to grow up.

You see, Repsac3's whole gig is to bring me down to size, and he's done it! He's won! I'm a total mountebank!

Perhaps the guy can call it a day and get some help. I mean seriously. Repsac3 needs to put up a victory post on his blog and move on to greener pastures.That's it, he's won the gold for his super-sleuthing! I concede defeat! You've done it man! I'm an idiot who has no business running a blog in the first place.

Think about it: Just yesterday Reppy took issue with my post on gay-male knitting, and he administered a brutal smackdown: "Grow up, professor. It's a new millennium."

So, it's not just my reading comprehension, it's my troglodyte values. You know, to pay penance I'm going to run out to Toys-R-Us right now with my 7 year-old son and pick up some "Barbie Girl Stuff" so my kid will fit in better at school. I mean, those traditional gender roles are so archaic! I have to admit I'm embarrassed sometimes to be an American!

So, yes, this is a turning point for me. I'm tempted, of course, to blame it all on Jim Beam! I really need to read David Frum more carefully! There's just no excuse for me to even entertain the possibility of his turncoat revisionism.

But wait! Hold on a minute there! Frum does have this little thing project going on to blame everybody but himself for the "debacle" in Iraq. It wasn't the strategic conception, it was the execution! President George W. Bush was an incompetent fool:

To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an “axis of evil,” it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because “the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.” This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on “failure at the center”—starting with President Bush.

Starting with President Bush, eh? Yep, that takes a lot of courage, I know! And Frum's rehabilitation from erstwhile policy advisor the Torquemada of the "new conservative movement" continues at The New Majority, where you'll find a whole six-piece revisionist series on the war, "WHAT WENT WRONG IN IRAQ - THE DEFINITIVE ACCOUNT ..."

So, yes, I admit it: I jumped the gun on that post last night. Yep, I'm down low on my error here, and I'm going to look forward to Repsac3's final victory post at American Nihilist. I am humbled by the superior minds of these people! They have now completely revealed my intellectual bankruptcy.

I'm going to go play with my son now: "The Diamond Castle Playset" awaits!

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE! Hey, I need to screw up more often! Jules Crittenden links! He's related to Frum, so wouldn't you know it!

**********

I'm pretty much over the whole intraparty Rush Limbaugh debate. Patrick Ruffini summed things up well yesterday when he said:

It's one thing to reject spokespeople with neither egghead credentials nor talent, like Joe the Plumber, or those who are positively cringe-worthy, like Coulter. Rush belongs in neither of these categories. There is value in having provocative voices who know how to string two sentences together with arguments rooted in conservative ideas, not cultural pastiche. And though provocative and sometimes impolitic, Rush's arguments are usually calibrated and thought-out in their own way. Wanting Obama to fail from wrecking a country we all hope succeeds is not something a GOP politician should necessarily say, but is something Rush should be able to say from his perch outside the party.

He should, but apparently that message (so true and uncontroversial), along with all the attention Limbaugh's getting, has some longtime Republicans worried. Case in point is David Frum, who has been campaigning against Rush this last week or so. Now Frum's escalated to Newsweek, with his new essay, "Why Rush is Wrong."

Readers can read the whole thing for themselves (it's a rehash of the blog post at New Majority earlier). For me it's nothing new, so let's paraphrase Frum: The GOP can't let the party be hijacked by a fat, drug-addled, divorced publicity-seeking talk-radio blowhard, who represents not traditionalism but stereotypical ambition and self-indulgence.

Again, that's paraphrasing, and not that much actually (check the link).

What really bothers me here is Frum's discussion of his "bona fides." Yeah, Frum's a GOP insider, so he's presumably got the conservative creds to bash Limbaugh. But this part just sticks in my craw: " I supported the Iraq War ... although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect ..."

Why does Frum feel silly about it? He was one of the biggest Iraq cheerleaders on the right. Indeed, along with Richard Perle, Frum was the most aggressive "neocon" making the case for U.S. neo-imperial domination. Maybe it's just me, but the war in Iraq pretty much defines one's political identity on what it means to stand up for what's right. Anyone can offer a new policy program for the movement. They say we need to "adapt" conservatism to the 21st century. What does that mean? Bailouts and welfare entitlements as far as the eye can see? Because that's the new "political reality"? I don't think so. Frum's hammering Limbaugh for harking back to Reagan, but we need to go back to Goldwater! I love the Gipper - really, he's the best 20th-century president - but reading Conscience of a Conservative is the antidote for the Obamessianism that's taking over the country.

I'll have more later. But I'll tell you, gaining power and staying in the media spotlight is way more important to folks like David Frum than is sticking to a set of beliefs that identify what it really means to be conservative.

More at Memeorandum.

"No Faggots, Dykes or Trannies"?

As I've noted previously, the gay marriage debate, following oral arguments before the California Supreme Court this week, is kicking into a new stage of advocacy and grievance.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that the 18,000 same-sex married couples in the state will constitute a "minority within a minority." Gays will be "part of an exclusive club whose doors have been closed to others."

The gist of the article is that it's only a matter of time, and the couples who were able to marry before the window closed will be civil rights pioneers, "living examples" of the kind of "discrimination" this new subject class is likely to face.

Notice how the piece is totally divorced from the reality on the ground, where a solid majority of voters in the state passed Proposition 8, and only 31 percent of Americans nationally said they support "FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples." Yet, the left sees the legalization of same-sex marriage as inevitable, and the liberal media's more than happy to spread along the meme. Indeed, the picture above of Vanessa Godson, her wife Julie Halverson-Godson, and their 2 year-old son Graham, was featured on the front-page of today's paper. It's a great photograph and they look like a happy family, but they are not subject to discrimination, as civil unions and gay adoption are both allowed in California.

Today's Times also features an essay by Robin Rauzi, a former editor at the paper, " entitled, "I'll Be a Marriage Outlaw." Rauzi, suggests that she'll still face discrimination even if the Supreme Court allows the pre-Prop 8 marriages to stand: "... rather than dread my potential future of semi-suspended matrimony, I've decided to embrace it. On this roller-coaster trip toward full civil rights for gays, this could be the fun part of the ride."

In any case, that brings me to the title of this post. It turns out that the Connecticut Catholic Conference is seeking religious exemptions from the state's new same-sex marriage law. The proposal is broad. Even "a florist opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds not be forced to sell flowers to a same-sex couple."

I think the intent here is more toward protecting health providers from having to perform abortions against their conscience, so the Catholic Conference may be pushing it. But of course, sooner than you can say "Stonewall," the radical GLBT activists have come out of the fever swamps to scream "bigotry" and "intolerance":

I'm just waiting for the first "no faggots, dykes or trannies" sign to go up in a business's window. that's what they're calling for here - a revisitation of jim crow.

Now think about this: A proposal to allow people of religious belief to withhold certain services is not going to take the country back to "Jim Crow." And to make this argument is to do grave injustice to the harrowing treatment of black Ameircans through three centuries of slavery and the brutality of violent white supremacy that followed even after three constitutional amendments. The rights afforded to gay Americans today are the envy of truly oppressed groups worldwide. The types of arguments made by gay radicals today are false analogies that minimize the violence of chattel bondage and they mock the struggles of America's black freedoms fighters through history.

People will say, "Wait, what about those right wing exremists who argue gays are going to marry their pets or robots"?

I'd respond by saying that there is no need to demonize gays for bestiality," although logically if society defines marriage so that any oppressed group can make successful claims to equal protection under the matrimonial umbrella, the right to marry an animal can be seen as an extension of the agenda. In any case, for gay activists to demand a right to marry is to propose a goal that is fundamentally ILLIBERAL in nature, that is to say, authoritarian. As Susan Shell has observed:

Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

Because of this logic, the left will continue to demonize those of traditional values, and especially religious conservatives. In turn, conservative groups will feel increasingly on the defense, and the left's socio-cultural alliance between postmodern interest groups and the liberal press will continue to spin wild scenarios of discrimination and oppression where very little in fact exists.

In my post last night on Vantha Sao and Jay Mendes, folks in the comments reacted as though the expressions of traditionalism toward gender roles was something extreme. While my position is not extreme (a visit to the toy section of any Target store will tell you that), the reaction to it illustrates just how far political correctness will go to excoriate and ridicule those who refuse to bend to the anything-goes licentiousness of the gay rights movement.

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Obama Seeks Permanent Expansion of Welfare Handouts

In a recent comment thread, Dr. Hussein Birdbrain dismissed the idea that President Barack Obama will expand welfare handouts to the poor:

So what ARE the anti-poverty programs you keep going on about? How much money are we talking about? Because I can assure you that the majority of this spending is NOT for anti-poverty welfare programs ... Perhaps I'm wrong and you can explain all these anti-poverty programs that I haven't been hearing about in my liberal circles; but I'm fairly sure they'll turn out to be minor amounts. But perhaps you'd like to put actual numbers to your rhetoric and prove me wrong.

Dr. Hussein needs to specify exactly what he means by "anti-poverty welfare programs"; because while there is a policy difference between entitlement programs and means tested-programs, both categories are referred to by policy analysts as "income security expenditures," which means by definition that such programs are designed to keep Americans from falling into poverty. Indeed, when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935, he said:

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

The rise of the social service state has elevated federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF for the poor, anti-poverty food programs, drug rehabilitation, housing relief (Section 8), and unemployment insurance (to name a few) to the center of public budgeting. All of these are "anti-poverty" programs, and since Social Security and Medicare make up roughly one-third of all federal spending, we're talking about at least another 15 percent of the budget going to "anti-poverty welfare programs."

Actually, there's been a lot of commentary on these issues lately. Policy analyst Robert Rector has argued that President Obama will end welfare-refrom as we know it:

The stimulus bill will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government will begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads ... Candidate Barack Obama promised to make government "more open and transparent." But, in office, President Obama has done the opposite, promoting a massive spending bill riddled with secret provisions unrelated to economic stimulus. The stimulus bill is being used as a Trojan horse to secretly overturn welfare reform, massively expand long-term welfare spending, and permanently "spread the wealth."

At the Wall Street Journal, Benjamin Sasse and Kerry Weems also discuss Obama's welfare reform rollback:

Through a little noticed provision of the stimulus package that has passed the House of Representatives, the bill creates a fund for TANF that is open-ended -- the same way Medicare and Social Security are.

In the section of the House bill dealing with cash assistance to low-income families, the authors inserted the bombshell phrase: "such sums as are necessary." This is a profound departure from the current statutory scheme, despite the fact that, in this particular bill, state TANF spending would be capped. The "such sums" appropriation language is deliberately obscure. It is a camel's nose provision intended to reverse Clinton-era legislation and create a new template for future TANF reauthorizations.

Hmm, open-ended? Sounds like public assistance would in fact become an "entitlement" program, which means that these appropriations would become what's known in budget parlance as "uncontrollable expenditures" in which funding would be set by fixed formulas and reauthorization is automatic. Such programs are extremely difficult to reduce or refrom.

Peter Ferrara at the American Spectator identifies explicitly how the administration's budget will expand the tradition anti-povery sector, with open-budget appropriations and accounting gimmicks:

Here, in fact, is exactly how the budget promises to produce these many years of economic growth, in its chapter on "Jumpstarting the Economy and Investing for the Future":

-- Make Permanent the $800 "Making Work Pay" Tax Cut for Workers and Families. This is the income tax credit discussed above that sends lots of money to people who do not pay income taxes, and involves no change in incentives for those who do pay income taxes. Borrowing $800 for each two-earner couple to send them a check for $800 adds nothing to the economy on net.

-- Continue to Cut Taxes for the Families of Millions of Children Through an Expansion of the Child Tax Credit. Ditto the above.

-- Increase Food Stamp Benefits for Over 30 Million Americans. Increasing welfare does not promote economic growth. It retards it, by promoting dependency and non-work instead.

-- Provide Nearly 60 Million Retired and Disabled Americans an Immediate $250 Through Temporarily Increasing Benefits. Increasing welfare does not promote economic growth, even if the recipient really needs the money.

-- Extend, Expand and Reform Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits. Extending and expanding unemployment insurance benefits provides no incentives or other boost for economic growth. Rather, it does just the opposite.

-- Reform Asset Tests. This means make it easier to get welfare. No economic boom here.

There is also some infrastructure spending, which will work to promote the economy like Roosevelt's old Works Progress Administration (WPA) did early in the Great Depression. Government spending is not free, and is not the foundation of economic growth.

Finally, take a look at the budget analysis from the left-wing NPR:

Regarding poverty, it's difficult to tell exactly how much the administration proposes spending on the disadvantaged. Specific numbers will not be available until April, when the administration is set to release a more detailed budget. However, Sharon Parrott, a welfare expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says it's clear the administration is not trying to reduce the deficit at the expense of programs for the poor. Some critics warn, though, that temporary benefit increases approved as part of the stimulus package could turn into a permanent expansion of welfare programs.

So, we'll see exact anti-povety numbers in April. But given, the above analysis, there's really not much that remains to be known. The Obama administration is committed to literally trillions of dollars to the expansion of anti-poverty programs. And this will be costly, coming out to $25,573.48 apiece per taxpayer. And keep in mind, we're not even talking about the socialization of American medicine.

So, let me put out the call to Dr. Birdbrain to respond to this post with a rebuttal to the argument and the preliminary numbers (although the guy's a pathological liar, so whatever response we do end up seeing with be contaminated with progressive postmodernist budgetary baloney).

We are seeing the largest expansion of government in American history. While folks right now are focused on anti-tax tea parties and those who're going "John Galt," this subterranean expansion of the state welfare-handout sector is one of the biggest signs that this administration is indeed hellbent on to shift this country over to the European socialist model.