Categories
National politics

Imagine This

I know I’m this will sound crazy but imagine for a minute that Mexico (or some of the 31 states of Mexico) were to petition to become states as part of the United States. (There is nothing in the constitution to stop them so long as they have, or choose to adopt, a republican form of government.) How would you react? How would you expect your fellow citizens to react?

After imagining the unimaginable, does this thought affect the way you think about immigration (illegal or otherwise)?

Categories
culture National politics

“Republican” Does Not Equal “Conservative”

I was excited to hear The Fall of Conservatism on Radio West and to read the article being discussed. All through the show there was a concern lurking in the back of my brain. When I finally identified it as the unfortunate interchanging of the movement called conservatism with the political party called republican I was all the more anxious to read the original article to see if this same confusion was perpetuated there – it was.

Despite the blurring of terminology, I found the article very enlightening about both the Republican party and the Conservative movement. The first and most important thing to do in teasing apart the Republican brand from the Conservative label is to define what it is to be conservative. Defining Republican is easy because it is nothing more or less than an organized political party – the confusion is that this party has been the primary vehicle through which conservatism has had its political voice. The best definition I have seen of “conservative” comes from Chuck Muth in an email he got from Lyn Nofziger. Muth’s whole post is worth reading but it can be summarized as follows:

  1. Conservatives believe in the Constitution as it is written.
  2. Conservatives believe in small, limited government at every level – along with individual responsibility. (Government should be a resource of last resort.)
  3. Conservatives believe taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government.

George Packer spends a lot of time in The Fall of Conservatism talking about how the movement is dying because of the political maneuvering of Republicans. That is not killing, and cannot kill, the conservative movement (it just kills the conservative attachment to the party). Packer identifies two ways that conservatives can approach the challenge of getting the Republican party back in power – and I note the unspoken assumption that this is the only option for conservatives to have any political effect:

One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, “The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.”

The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reestablish dominance.

I would suggest that the conservative movement does not need to do anything about the purist approach because the movement has not strayed from those principles – they lost influence within the Republican party. Any party which will promote the conservative vision of good government will have the political backing of conservatives – whether that alone is sufficient to gain political power is a question for a separate post.

Packer says:

Conservatives knew how to win elections; however, they turned out not to be very interested in governing.

It would be more accurate to say

Republicans knew how to win elections with conservative rhetoric; however, they turned out not to be very interested in governing according to conservative principles.

The reformist approach is really not an issue for the conservative movement to address – it is an issue for the Republican party to address. It is a sure bet that until they address this issue of adapting to new circumstances they will “spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats” before they are able to regain any consistent political power. Essentially, until this problem is addressed the Republican are likely to be the opposition party just as the Democrats have largely been the opposition party since 1980. (The failures of the 2006 Democratic congress suggest that the Democrats still identify as anti-Bush more than pro-anything much like the Republicans lost much of their identity with the downfall of communist Eastern Europe. 2010 and 2012 are going to be races between the parties to see which can articulate a cogent political philosophy first – and the Democrats seem to have a head start in that process.)

The Republican party gained power by adopting and later exploiting conservative rhetoric but we have not really had conservatives in power since 1988 – just a lot of Bushes and Clintons. In 1988 many people assumed that Bush 41 would be conservative as Reagan had been. He did not pretend to be conservative so he lost in 1992 as an incumbent. In 2000 Bush 43 beat a sitting Vice President because he did pretend to be conservative. The elections of 1992 and 1996, when there was no candidate who used really conservative rhetoric, could not be decided by the polarizing tactics that have been employed by Republicans under the cover of conservative rhetoric since the 1960s. 2008 is likely to shape up the same way because, as David Brooks said to Packer:

“McCain, crucially, missed the sixties, and in some ways he’s a pre-sixties figure. He and Obama don’t resonate with the sixties at all.”

Is conservatism dying? I don’t think so. I believe that it is as alive as it ever was (which was always much less alive than the party it informed) – the only real change is that the movement is becoming almost completely disattached from a particular political vehicle. The conservative movement, like any social movement, is more than political maneuvering (unlike a simple political party which may well be nothing more than political maneuvering) and it is alive to the degree that the principles of conservatism are being passed to a new generation. How much those principles are being passed on is anybody’s guess. Whether the movement will gain political power is also an open-ended question. But to say that its dying because it is not connected with a political party is inaccurate. The truth is that the party is dying until it can regain its identity or adopt a new ideological identity.

Categories
politics State

Justice In Texas

The Texas Supreme Court has just shown what justice looks like:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the removal of FLDS children from the YFZ Ranch was unwarranted — and the decision to take them was an abuse of judicial discretion. . . .

In its ruling, the high court said that state law gave the lower court broad authority to protect children “short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care,” including removing alleged perpetrators from a child’s home and preventing the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the investigating agency. (emphasis added)

One of the hard things in opposing the actions of CPS is trying to illuminate the distinction between protecting the children and ignoring the rule of law. Unfortunately it is all to easy for an agency like CPS to abuse the power that is placed in their hands and in many cases where that happens it is also very easy for the courts to side with the professional and well organized government agency while discounting the plea’s of the distraught and disorganized parents. Naturally in a case as large as this the parents were not so disorganized as they often are when it is a single family – or even a single parent – trying to challenge the government agency.

The important thing right now is that the Texas Supreme Court got it right in saying that CPS overstepped their bounds but that they are still allowed to investigate allegations of abuse and take less drastic steps to protect the children.

Categories
culture

Right, Left, or Straight

I think that Lyall is right in suggesting that we are asking the wrong question in the education debate. He identifies the current question as “How can we reform, improve our system of education today?” He believes that the correct question if we are to come to the answers we need is “What is the purpose of education?”

I think the critical distinction between those questions is that the one we are asking publicly is equivalent to a game we used to play in the car as kids called “Right, Left, or Straight.” (RLS for short.) In that game we would drive until we got to an intersection and then Mom would call out “Right, left, or straight?” We would then vote (by who yelled the loudest generally) to determine which available path we would take. There was no right answer to the question, but there was also no knowing where we would end up before it was time to return home. The question we should be asking is like sitting down in a family council and asking where we want to vacation this year. Again there is no single right answer, but there are plenty of places you would not want to go where you might find yourself if you just hopped in the car and played RLS for your summer vacation.

The first option can be fun, but not very productive. It is useful in changing course, but not in determining the desirable outcome. Once you have determined the desired destination then there is an innate game of RLS to arrive there (the difference being that there is now a correct answer to the question when you come to an intersection).

My answer to Lyall’s new and improved question was that the purpose of education should be to provide the foundation of basic skills like the three R’s and to teach students how to face challenges and find answers to questions. Lyall contends that there is another part to education that involves (as I interpret it) education regarding right and wrong, fair play, and other generic moral issues.

Who is right? join the discussion by commenting here or there.

Categories
life

Another Running Post

It’s been quite a while since I posted about running. For that matter, it’s been a long time since anything noteworthy happened while I was running. This morning as I was starting out on my (semi-regular) morning run I heard my name called out from behind me. By the time I could turn my head my brother-in-law had passed me on his bike. I don’t know how long or how often his training takes him clear down near my area, but this is the first time I’ve seen him training while I was out running.

Thanks Dave for calling out to me, it was a fun way to start my run.

Categories
politics

Federalist Nos. 15 – 16

Federalist Nos. 15 and 16 led me to two conclusions. First, Hamilton is accusing those who oppose the Constitution of hoping for a different result by repeating their previous actions (sounds like our modern politics of perpetual incumbency). Second, the confederacy that Hamilton describes that preceded our current (theoretically) Constitutional government sounds a lot like the United Nations – it lacked sufficient authority to effectively enforce its edicts on its members. This tells me that the U.N. is bound to be ineffective until it disintegrates or is replaced by a stronger version of world government.

I’d hate to think what would happen if the U.N. were given better enforcement powers unless it is done with a very firm limitation on what areas of life the U.N. had authority to regulate (as our federal government had at its inception).

Categories
culture

Living Memorials

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I am lousy about any traditional holiday celebration, but Memorial Day just passed me by without making any more impression than any other rainy day. No, I’m not bitter at having my plans ruined by the weather – my plans proceeded without any interruption. It’s not that I dislike any aspect of the holiday – I think Memorial Day is among the better holidays on the calendar.

I guess this grinch just wonders what value there is in one more day for us to have a small ceremony for an hour and then spend the rest of our lives neither thinking about those who paid the price for freedom nor working to ensure that we don’t throw away what they paid so dearly to obtain.

Categories
culture life

What’s Your Ideal?

I have been thinking a lot about my ideal living situation. It’s really something I have been exploring for years. My thinking is not confined to my own ideal, I also think about what is ideal for people generally (a pretty gray area) and about why situations that are not ideal for me are ideal for other people (which is total guesswork without some outside input).

I am considering factors such as the size of city to live in ranging from millions to tens, the proximity to amenities and services, which amenities or services are most important, the distance between houses, the culture of the neighbors (assuming you’re in a place large enough to have neighbors), the size of the house, and the size of the property.

For myself, I prefer a small community where people know each other and are tightly knit but not close-minded. The house does not need to be very large, but it must be configured in a way that is conducive to the family life that we are trying to create (it would take a whole series of posts to describe the family life we are trying to achieve). I could live on as little as a quarter acre in the right circumstances, but would be able to tolerate much more various conditions around me if I had at least 2 acres to work with. It is imperative that any living situation leave me with the opportunity to garden. I absolutely cannot live with neighbors so close that it takes less than 5 people to span the distance between separate houses.

I can easily live 2 miles from the nearest store, but I believe that 10 miles would be fine (I’ve never done that before so that’s not guaranteed). The only utilities that I must have are access to water (I don’t think I would mind a well), electricity, and an internet connection – although I would prefer a sewer system over a septic tank.

So what’s your ideal? Over the next few weeks I hope to write up the advantages and disadvantages I see in different sizes of cities as well as generic thoughts on the advantages of rural, suburban, and urban settings. Please chime in with any insights or experience you have on the benefits or drawbacks of various living situations.

Categories
culture politics State

Changing the System

The Ogden Standard Examiner had a great guest commentary by the chairwoman of the Weber County Democratic Party. LaFray Kelley asks a good question:

Why should the presence or absence of an ex-Massachusetts governor on the ballot for president have any influence on your judgment over how well your local state legislators have done in representing your interests? It’s obvious when you think about it: Who’s on the ballot for president has nothing at all to do with how your state and local elected representatives are doing.

Unfortunately she fails to recognize that there is an answer to her question that is worth considering about our political culture. The presence or absence of an ex-Massachussetts governor may have no bearing on how our local or state elected officials are doing, but because of our high interest in Utah regarding this particular ex-governor his presence or absence does effect our general interest in casting a ballot at all in November. The problem is that our political culture is biased towards the highest levels of government when it comes time to perform our civic duties.

Ms. Kelley quite accurately states that our votes are more likely to affect the outcome of local and state races and that those races have a greater impact on our lives.

The message here is simple: Exercise your right to vote for whomever you want for president, but recognize your votes for state and local candidates are far more important — and have far more impact. These are the votes where you have a civic duty to closely examine the issues and the candidates. It is especially important to find out about nonincumbent candidates, so you understand what your choices are. This admittedly will take extra effort, but that effort is perhaps the most important duty you will exercise as a citizen.

While I fully agree with Ms. Kelley on her conclusions I am forced into skepticism regarding her motives for two reasons. First, the party she represents is the party that most clearly espouses the attitude that promotes the top-down approach to government, especially in social issues. Second, her timing is off. If we really want to change the system we should be starting at the precinct caucus meetings and during the primary season. By putting her commentary out after the state conventions she has assured that there are very few primaries available to consider non-incumbent candidates. For the most part, our only options are for the general election in November and the vast majority of us can choose between an incumbent (not changing the system) who is a Republican, or a non-incumbent (who she has just touted as the avenue for change) who is a Democrat like her.

Such timing undercuts the level application across parties that any argument for change should have because change is not just changing parties, it is changing the political system by examining the candidates and issues before your choices are whittled down to one or two. That truly is “perhaps the most important duty you will exercise as a citizen.”

Categories
National politics

Power as an End

Cal Thomas sums up America’s current political situation quite succinctly:

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. Duncan complains that conservative, pro-life, pro-gun Democrats won three special elections by stealing GOP issues.

“We can’t let the Democrats take our issues,” Duncan told the New York Times. “We can’t let them pretend to be conservatives and co-opt the middle and win these elections. We have to get the attention of our incumbents and candidates and make sure they understand this.”

Democrats didn’t steal your issues, sir. You abandoned them. Your party discarded them.

The current situation is that Democrats as a party have been enough out of power for long enough that the party is more tolerant of a wider range of viewpoints under its banner. Conversely, the Republican party has been in power for so long that being in power has become their primary goal and they have consequently abandoned their principles whenever they felt it was necessary to achieve that goal.

Having two strong parties that espouse different principles so that the people can choose which principles they believe in is not entirely a bad thing. Having two parties that use principles merely as tools to gain and retain power in the government is an entirely different story.