Zeal For Truth

We had a link last week about the Republicans looking like they are going to go belly up. They seem in complete disarray about why this is happening. But is it so hard for the Republicans to figure out what went wrong? Let me take a stab at it.

This country is not cleanly divided into three roughly equal blocks of people wearing blue, red and gray clothes. The political spectrum is as unique as each individual, but come election day, we normally have two to three broad categories with which to align ourselves. If republicans are are going to lose so badly this November, it’s because their own policies have either become so dogmatic that they represent only a small group of people, or they have become so broad that they don’t really stand for anything.

Republicans did quite well in the 1980’s with Reagan and in Congress in 1994 when Newt made some Reagan-like promises. The rhetoric and the actions of those republicans in power (well, at least some of the actions) were soundly conservative. Especially more conservative than those of a long line of republicans (perhaps even before the progressive era at the turn of the century).

It’s not rocket science on how to get elected in America - as I suspect that despite the idealistic appeal of big programs from the left, Americans more or less want officials that show professional and personal restraint. We want responsible and wise authority. As Sideshow Bob said:

Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.

Regardless of democratic or republican affiliation, most politicians seem to get elected by promoting 1) fiscal responsibility 2) reducing (or at least promising to) the size and scope of the federal government 3) freer-markets and free-enterprise 4) civil liberties 5) religious values as character virtues rather than state or public ones (freedom of religion) 6) a strong defensive military policy.

It is clear that in order to win, Republicans must simply embrace those roots (which have now all but withered up) which used to define them as conservative. When Nixon did these things (such as détante) he was popular. When he did not (character) - he left his office in disgrace. Bush Sr. got elected on the promises of Reagan and proceeded to abandon his conservative pledges (no new taxes), and he was booted out. Bill Clinton, in many ways, ran and maintained office with (compared to Bush I) conservative policies and rhetoric - especially regarding trade, spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. Clinton’s major failure however, was character (Whitewater, Lewinski). Even this most recent democratic congress was elected to end our aggressive military policy and irresponsible spending.

So now this modern crop of the GOP (and the democrats as well, just not as badly) has alienated most Americans by adhering to the exact opposite of these values: 1) fiscal recklessness 2) massively expanding the federal government 3) more socialism and protectionism 4) obstructing civil liberties 5) making personal integrity and character into empty, neutered and impersonal public virtues 6) preemptive war and a belligerent military policy.

The GOP have merely embraced a”conservative-values statism.” They have applied the evils of big government in an ends-justifies-the-means claim to bring about “conservative” ends. In other words: conservative ends by socialist means. Is anyone surprised that this kind of disingenuous policy has failed?

We’ve discussed, at length, the racist newsletters with Ron Paul’s name on the front. However, Reason magazine, in a true show of journalistic zeal, has continued to prod the issue and discovered the very real possibility that the newsletters in question were written by none other than Lew Rockwell.

[Paul] told CNN last week that he still has “no idea” who might have written inflammatory comments such as “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks”—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with Reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul’s chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

This would be a double-edged sword for Paul. On the one hand, it would demonstrate quite clearly that he had no hand in writing the letters at all. However, Rockwell is well known to Paul, and it demonstrates a potential lack in oversight on behalf of Paul. It is still very realistic that Rockwell was doing much of this unknown to Paul, as part of his own agenda:

The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.

Reason also obtained the following statement from Tom Lizardo, Paul’s chief of staff during much of his congressional campaigns:

Last week, a statement was prepared by Ron Paul’s press secretary Jesse Benton, and approved by Ron Paul, acknowledging Lew Rockwell as having a role in the newsletters. The statement was squashed by campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

More Politics
Huckabee’s boldest God-talk yet: “amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”

A 5th Amendment case: Porn, passwords and rights in the Internet age

And then Some
Hannah Hannah Montana Montana: body doubles anonymous.

20 Reasons to Read Good Christian Books