Tag: Libertarian

The Republican Party and Reagan

A very interesting piece is in the Wall Street Journal today, about the Republican Party and the Era of Ronald Reagan. Republicans and most Conservatives; including this writer, find themselves nostalgic about the Reagan era. The 1980’s was a magical time for me. I could get into all that; but this entry would soon turn into a sappy trip down memory lane. Because I am not ready to break out the ensure and reminisce about the good old days just yet, I will spare you the stories. —– I mean, I am only 36 people, give a guy a break!

Getting back on track here, the Wall Street Journal does an excellent piece on the Era of Reagan and the Republican Party. Here is a summary video:

Quote:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made headlines last weekend suggesting it’s time for the party to get over its glory days: “I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [GOP] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause.” Joyful Democratic bloggers put this more clearly in five tight words: GOP Needs to Forget Reagan.

Is this true?

The answer to that historic question is an apt subject this week as the GOP, looking for a path from the wilderness, says farewell at National Cathedral tomorrow to Jack Kemp, who remained a Reaganite to the end.

Jack Kemp, anyone who spent time around him will tell you, stayed on message. That message, like Reagan’s, had a number of parts, but it is not possible to even guess how many times Jack Kemp summarized his explanations of that message in three words: “Work, save and invest.” Republicans should think hard about building a governing philosophy on the foundation of those three words, ideas that most voters understand.

The article goes on to praise Jack Kemp and to further praise Reagan and his ideals. Those ideals, I believe, are important to remember; Self-Reliance, Small Government, Personal Freedom, all are commendable principles and are ones that all Americans should know and believe in. However, it would be a monumental mistake to sit here and not acknowledge the fact that Ronald Reagan’s policies were not perfect at all. The fact is the man had flaws. As humans, we tend to gloss over the bad parts of a President legacy that we hold in high esteem. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, of whom I admire greatly, had flaws as well. Some of his policies did more to hurt, than they did to help.

Richard Gamble over at The American Conservative, writes a very interesting piece on the policies and legacy of President Ronald Reagan, here are some excerpts:

Such an endorsement from one of the greatest inspirations of the post-World War II conservative renaissance carries considerable authority with the movement. And rightly so. It should give pause to anyone reckless enough to challenge Reagan’s legacy. But that legacy itself raises nagging questions. The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981. Reagan’s tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt. His tax increases were among the largest proportionate ones in U.S. history. And more than one historian has called Reagan’s foreign policy “Wilsonian.” In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that the Reagan Revolution fundamentally altered the nation’s trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionist government. Conservatism in the 1980s made its peace with much of liberalism—if not with all of its legislative agenda, then at least with its means to power. Republicans and Democrats now argue over how big the bailouts should be or how long the troops should remain deployed, rarely about first principles.

(…)

Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative. He aligned the Republican crusader more closely with America’s expansive liberal temperament. In particular, his brand of evangelical Christianity, combined with fragments of Puritanism, enlightenment optimism, and romantic liberalism, set Reagan apart in key ways from historic conservatism.

(…)

Reagan grew up in the 1920s in Dixon, Illinois in the pietistic, revivalist world of the Disciples of Christ—a world known to many millions of American evangelicals then and since. Biographer Edmund Morris’s Dutch (1999) and Paul Kengor’s God and Ronald Reagan (2004) make much of the “practical Christianity” espoused by Reagan’s mother, the local pastor and congregation, and such religious best-sellers as That Printer of Udell’s. This activist faith shared important assumptions with the social gospel’s “applied Christianity.” Both set out to remake the City of Man through the power of the church’s moral influence. Reagan’s spirituality was shaped by a “Jesus-only” populist Christianity that emphasized the conversion experience and an activist faith suspicious of creeds, rituals, ecclesiastical bodies, and denominational boundaries.

Reagan never turned away from this transformationist Christianity. It became a fundamental part of his civil religion. Historian John Patrick Diggins, in Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History (2007), goes as far as to say that the president’s theology “seemed to offer a Christianity without Christ and the crucifixion, a religion without reference to sin, evil, suffering, or sacrifice.” Diggins’s implicit question, “Why couldn’t Reagan have been more like Reinhold Niebuhr?” may not be exactly the right one. Why should we expect our presidents to do theology at all, even neo-orthodox theology? But his point is well taken. Reagan’s optimistic Christianity seemed ready made for an America disinclined to hear talk of limits to power and wealth. The historic Christian message can sound downright un-American.

(…)

In a further criticism, Lukacs traced the “militarization of the image of the presidency” to Reagan. It was Reagan, after all, who began the practice of returning the salutes of the military—a precedent followed by every president since. While doing so may seem to honor the military, it in fact erodes the public’s understanding of the presidency as a civilian office, Lukacs argued. Indeed, Fox News bears out Lukacs’s warning. The cable news giant got into the habit during the Bush II administration of referring to the president as commander in chief no matter what story they were reporting, seemingly unaware that the nation’s executive is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Untied States and not commander in chief of the American people at large. If the president visits a city ravaged by a hurricane, he is emphatically not there in his role as commander in chief. If every American thinks of the president—of whatever political party—as my commander in chief and not narrowly as the Army or Navy’s commander in chief, then we have taken another decisive step from republic to empire. If every American expects the president to be the commander in chief of the economy, then we can’t be surprised by nationalized banks and corporations.

I think it would be a good idea to read that article in it’s entirety to truly get what is being said. It is indeed a truly interesting article to read.

My take on the subject at hand is this; The Republican Party needs to catch up with the times. This is not 1981; this is 2009, America is facing some serious challenges in this new era. The Republican Party needs to provide a sane alternative to the socialist madness of the Democratic Party; doing so, while keeping Reagan’s principles in mind. But the Republican Party must also be mindful that some, not all, some of Reagan’s policies did more to hurt, than they did to help. If they do this properly, they will be able to retake the White House in 2012. Another important issue is who they choose to run against Obama in 2012. If they try and run someone like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, they are going to get eaten alive in the election. However, if they run someone like Mark Sanford; they might just have a chance at winning. The problem with the Republican Party has not been principles, but the framing of the Party’s message. The Party needs to be a little more Mark Sanford and Ron Paul, and maybe even Pat Buchanan and much less Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham. There is nothing wrong with Conservative principles, but when the people that are attempting to promote them are doing more to alienate, than they are to actually promote them, something is wrong.

It has been said, that you can catch more files with honey than you can with vinegar. The Republican Party needs to work on that.

Update: Thanks to memeornadum for the link in and hello to the readers from that service! 😀

Update #2:  Hello to all the readers of the Moderate Voice, thanks to Joe for the link in! 😀

We're such nasty fascists!

If there was any one person that I still feel funny about linking to, it’s Jonah Goldberg. When I was still “Left of Center”, I despised the man. However, once I switched my moderate “Right of center” position, I began to see that Mr. Goldberg was a bit more right about liberalism, than I thought.

Goldberg makes the following observation:

Here’s a really perfectly distilled bit of stereotypical idiocy about the threat from the oogy-boogy-gun-loving-Right by Sara Robinson of the Campaign for America’s Future . It’s funny how I thought it was cribbed from David Neiwert and all of his campus coffeehouse philosophizing and — lo and behold — on page two the author reveals she is a colleague of Neiwert’s. It’s tiresome overheated nonsense that actually fits the us vs. them paranoia she ascribes to the Right better than most of the stuff you’ll ever find on the Right.

Do go follow the link, it is a very interesting read. I didn’t read it all myself. I couldn’t stomach the bile that comes out of the far left this early in the morning. Even I have limits. Even Goldberg’s readers were not very pleased with it either. Yes, I know, Goldberg is a Neo-Conservative; but he makes some very valid points about the left.  Especially when it comes to tolerance, it seems that the Liberals of today are much less tolerate on dissenting opinions than they used to be; especially during this time of Obama’s Hope and Change mantra.

Video: Motorhome Diaries Interviews Ernest Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix

Some of you might know this, but I submit some of my Blog postings over at a place called Freedom’s Phoenix. Freedom’s Phoenix is a Libertarian News Portal system, that I happen to enjoy, quite a bit.

Here is a video of the founder of Freedom’s Phoenix, Earnest Hancock being interviewed by Motorhome Diaries.

Freedom’s Pheonix HQ

The MotorHome Dairies

The Southern Avenger on "The Mexican Flu"

How the news coverage of the swine flu isn’t so much indicative of any serious crisis, but the mainstream media’s corporate and government, PC sensibilities.

The Charles Johnson, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller feud…. A Follow up

This is a follow up to a posting that I made a while back about the running feud between Charles Johnson against Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and a few other players.

I realize that no matter how I phrase this posting; someone is going to be offended or is going to hate me to the point of wanting to see my death. I mean, in this sort of a damned thing, you cannot win. If you say anything that one of the parties dislikes, you will be smeared and forced to take a side in the argument. When I lost my other blog to a hacking job; by somebody who was angered about comment that I made about a person on another blog, which was a horrific misstep on my part, which I did and still do readily admit. I made a promise to myself, that I would never engage in Blog wars or any other sort of nonsense.

However, I believe it is important to be clear where I stand; and because of this, I am going to make my feelings clear…

I was contacted by Dr. Robert Spencer about my initial posting. We discussed what I wrote and how I phrased my posting. He did ask me some very pointed questions and I answered honestly, I commend him for writing and asking. Because of this I feel the important need to clear the air.

It appears that Charles Johnson is playing a little game; a deadly game, that hurts people, smears them and makes them into something that they are not. This, I am afraid is wrong. That game is called “guilt by association.” This is a game that liberals play, especially when they are trying to further their agenda of identity politics. It appears that Mr. Johnson is now trying to smear Pat Buchanan, he seems to believe, for whatever foolish reason; that Pat Buchanan is an Anti-Semite. This is nothing more than a classic liberal smear. That’s right, I question the very idea that Charles Johnson is even a Conservative.

For the record, I have zero against Israel, Jews or Judaism. I do however, reject the Zionist movement, on Biblical theological basis only. (See 2 Corinthians 6:14-18) I have Zero against those who choose to practice Islam. However, I reject Islam as a false religion, and those who practice it, as lost and in need of Salvation, that comes only by Jesus Christ. The same goes for those who reject Christ and follow strictly after of the Law of Moses. (See John 14:4-11 and John 10:22-38 and Galatians 3:6-18)

Now, I will be the first to admit that some of the postings over at Pamela Geller’s Blog are, at times, borderline hysteria and could be interpreted by some as Anti-Islamic. However, for Charles Johnson to simply smear someone, because they are associated with a particular group is, in my opinion, unfair and is borderline libelous. I suppose that someone like me would be labeled Anti-Semite by Johnson as well, because of my issues with the Zionist Movement and its influence on the foreign policy of United States. If that is the badge that Mr. Johnson wants to hang on me; fine, I will wear it, I make no apologies for thinking and believing that the Capital of the United States of America is Washington D.C. and not Tel Aviv, Israel. If the Neo-Conservative and Liberal thought police want to try and smear me on this one, fine.

While my initial posting might have sounded like I was praising Charles Johnson, I was not, at all. It was simply lamenting the fact that people, who are supposedly opposed to Islamic fascism, were engaging in a bitter feud. However, since that posting, it seems that Charles Johnson wants to go after people like Michelle Malkin and others, who are in support of the combating of Terrorism and Islamic Fascism. This is totally unacceptable, and I hereby reject Charles Johnson as an enemy to America and a Liberal.

Pamela Geller may not like me, because of my position on Zionism. However, I stand for Freedom of speech and against the Liberal thought police. Hopefully, she understands.

Some are warning that Hyper Inflation is coming

Not sure if I agree with this or not, because I do not believe that we can predict this sort of a thing; but it is a interesting read.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, said George Santayana, the philosopher. But this familiar maxim is being ignored this week by President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill this week as they complete action on the chief executive’s proposed 2010 federal budget. With its unprecedented deficit approaching $2 trillion, this budget proposal is a certain prescription for hyper-inflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing actions that will turn America into the next Weimar Republic. For those too young to remember, that was the period in Germany in the years between the two world wars when people needed wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

In a 1993 interview, Harvard law professor Friedrich Kessler described what living with Weimar hyperinflation was like: “It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared….The shelves in the grocery store were empty. You could buy nothing with your paper money.” Thanks to the expanding profligacy on Capitol Hill, a version of such economic hell will likely happen here, according to two prominent economists. Johns Hopkins Professor Steve Hanke notes that the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet “has more than doubled in size since August…Unless the Fed shrinks its balance sheet,” he warns, “…inflation will roar back with a vengeance.”

via www.washingtonexaminer.com – Get ready for Obama’s coming hyperinflation.

Instapundit says that you do see gold prices going up, which might be a sign that the tea leave readers are shoring up, in case of a massive collapse. It is an interesting read. Some would say that this is nothing more than mas hysteria. by the dooms day folk. But it is an interesting fact that Obama has pour massive amounts of money into the system. It should be interesting to watch.

Update: Instapundit comments: “Actually, my point was that gold prices haven’t gone up particularly, as one would expect if hyperinflation were coming. Or, at least, if a lot of people thought it was coming.”

I stand corrected. Wow, The Glenn Reynolds commented on my Blog. SillyHypnotized I’ll never wash this Blog posting, ever. Winking I guess he does read his incoming links! Surprise

Local Auto News: Chrysler looking at Bankruptcy

A pretty sad thing to wake up today. However, I am sorry to say this, but I knew it was coming. Chrysler never was able to get their act together; unlike G.M. and get a resolution together.

The Report comes via the Washington Post, I won’t quote the whole thing and I kindly ask that you go over and read the whole thing. But rather, I will give some my impressions from the interesting stuff.

My impressions:

The Obama administration last night planned to send Chrysler into bankruptcy, replace chief executive Robert L. Nardelli and pump billions of dollars more into the effort, all in hopes the company can emerge from court proceedings as a reenergized competitor in the global economy.

Government officials clung to 11th-hour hopes last night that bankruptcy could be averted, but talks broke down with Chrysler’s creditors. A bankruptcy filing could happen as soon as today.

The U.S. government’s attempt to save the automaker amounts to another extraordinary intervention in the economy and a landmark event in the history of the American auto industry.

Under the administration’s detailed court strategy, ownership of Chrysler would be dramatically reorganized, the leadership of Italian automaker Fiat would take over company management and the U.S. and Canadian governments would contribute more than $10 billion in additional funding.

Company and government officials had feared that a bankruptcy would stain the brand, shake customer confidence and erode sales, but the administration said it would seek to use the process to create a new Chrysler company. Its ownership would be divided, with the company’s union retiree health fund receiving a 55 percent stake, Fiat would claim as much as a 35 percent share and the United States would take 8 percent. The Canadian government would receive two percent.

Basically this is what General Motors did voluntarily. Minus the Fiat equation, of course. It is a tough break that the creditors, bond holders, and company management could not come together to an agreement.  The main and good thing is, that the automaker, itself, will be saved, and that American jobs will be saved.

Now comes the part that will make people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the far right wing people howl at the moon:

The automaker’s current majority owner, the private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, would have its holdings wiped out.

Now, to be fair; I will report the truth about this holdings company. This company, from what I have read and have been told; is notorious for buying up struggling companies, like Chrysler and shutting them down and selling off the assets to make money. They have done this in past, from what I told. So, while I hate to see anyone lose their money. I actually am glad to see Chrysler being taken away from this company.

Let me also say this. As an Conservative, who believes in “America First”, and believes that business sometimes have to fail; I am not exactly jumping for joy, when it comes to fact that this auto company is having taxpayer dollars being pumped into it. Nor am I happy at the fact, that a US automaker is having a foreign auto company’s management taking over its operations. However, I believe we must be realistic about such matters. We are not living in the 1950’s any longer, we are in a economic recession of monumental proportions, and if we do not drastic measures quickly, we could see a total collapse of the American auto industry. I also know that there is a undeniable truth that “as Detroit goes, so goes America.” Pat Buchanan and I, have been saying this all along; if allow the big three or in this case, the big two to disappear our Nation’s economy would go into free fall. I shudder in absolute horror at the thought of the far reaching implications of such an event.

I will say, as a devout Paleo-Conservative; If we would have rejected the globalism of the Rockefeller-type conservative types and would have imposed strict trade restrictions on Japanese and other such foreign automotive products, these auto companies would not be in the position that they are today.  It is because of the Rockefeller-type, Madison Avenue, Neo-Conservatives, whose mantra is “screw the American middle class”, is the reason we are in this position today.  Further more, it is the reason that the world is also partaking in our recession as well.  Perhaps President Obama will see the state of our globalist economy and will rethink his position on NAFTA and TAFTA and the rest of those toxic free trade agreements that are in place; and impose strict tariffs on imports that are bleeding our economy dry.

Realistically however, I highly doubt that President Obama will do any of that, because he is trying to run as a centrist, or as I like to call it; he is sucking up to the Neo-Conservative right, as they are his biggest supporters, strangely, after trying so very hard to defeat him in the election. Of course, we Paleo-Conservatives know why this is; because the only difference between a Neo-Conservative and a Democrat is the letter next to the name.

Arlen Specter is switching to the Democratic Party

Hardly a surprise, considering the fact that he was always a moderate Republican.

A source involved in the talks confirms that Senator Arlen Specter will switch to the Democratic Party, a dramatic move putting the Democrats within reach of two votes in the Senate.

The move stands to put the White House’s agenda on a fast-track, and to renew hopes among organized labor for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Vice President Joe Biden was, I’m told, deeply involved in the talks with Specter.

The move also raises the stakes for the resolution of the Minnesota Senate race, and may tempt Republicans to drag that fight on further.

via Ben Smith’s Blog: Specter switching parties – POLITICO.com.

The  statement via PoliticsPA:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin and the folks over at Human Events give him the classic Republican send off.

Again, to me, this is not a very big shock at all. Arlen Specter was always a moderate, someone who was against the Religious right. Someone who always fought against the Social Conservatives against their theocratic agenda.