The American Spectator, quite a thorn in Bill Clinton's side, has undergone a re-design and a re-focus. Now, the magazine looks to the future: science, technology, the New Economy. This may seem odd for a conservative publication, but don't tell that to R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. He writes:
W
Today what we call conservatism is the body of political, social, and economic thought that best represents the American ideal: optimistic, freedom loving, growth oriented, eager for the future, bored by problems, excited by opportunity, resolute in the conviction that America remains the last, best hope of mankind.
Speaking of Progressive reforms, here's a doozy. Ralph Nader makes the case for publishing all votes and federal contracts online. More information for citizens, more accountability for their representatives...I'm all over it. (Courtesy of MeFi.) W
Bjoern Borg implores Europeans to have more sex. Far be it from me to dismiss the wisdom of a former Tennis superstar. As Gore Vidal once noted, "Never pass up a chance to have sex or appear on television." W
Franklin Foer rallies in defense of the "conventional wisdom." Today's journalists and intellectuals inherit their suspicion of conformity from the New Left: If everyone believes something, it's probably wrong. Yet CW, a broad agreement of elite opinion, is a time-tested means of filtering out the bunk; it is endorsed by philosophers and confirmed by social science... W
Making the Band, Chinese style. W
Well, Sean, you provided me with the usual litany of anti-Clintonisms. And, while Lord knows there's already been way too much time and effort spent in defending the often-indefensible Clintons, I wanted to make a few quick points.
1) I think the failure of "Hillarycare," as you call it, had less to do with public revulsion at a national health care system than it did with a massively financed "Harry and Louise" propaganda effort by the insurance companies. If the government helping to provide citizens with a basic level of health care was so anathema to the electorate, you wouldn't have seen Bush and Gore prostrating themselves before the elderly last year in the name of Prescription Drug benefits.
2) While it's true that Clinton's core political philosophy seems to be "progressive pragmatism," I'm not sure why a lack of ideological fervor is something to condemn the guy for. FDR evinced the same trait and we called it "bold experimentalism." I'll admit that such pragmatism makes for better governance than it does leadership, but I don't think it's any reason to hate the guy.
3) As for the discussion on Clinton's moral standards, it's patently obvious that the man hasn't been a choirboy of the Jimmy Carter school. But it's also clear that Clinton's Republican predecessors have been equally suspect in many regards. a) Clinton misled a grand jury about his extramarital sex life. Reagan "forgot" everything pertinent about the Iran-Contra affair, b) Clinton took money from foreigners with ties to the Communist Chinese. Reagan's administration illictly sold arms to Iran to circumvent Congress and fund the Contras. c) Clinton pardoned a number of shady people. Bush pardoned a number of shady people.
Now, I'm not trying to say "See, they all suck!" as much as I'm trying to ascertain the pressures acting on the Presidency that's seems to facilitate this less-than-desirable behavior in our Presidents. Two obvious ones would be the supreme importance of cashola in today's political system and the problems accompanying the Independent Counsel law. (Aside: I find it fascinating that conservatives who usually deride Big Government in all its forms seemed to so relish the exploits of an completely extraconstitutional prosecutor.) But, instead of trying to figure out how to combat these pernicious influences on our Chief Executive post, many conservatives seem to waste their time demonizing Clinton and canonizing Reagan. It's bizarre.
3) Speaking of bizarre, concerning Waco and Elian, It just seems strange to me that the purported party of family values and moral standards have chosen as their anti-government exemplars a child rapist con man and an "extended family" of child kidnappers. What happened in Waco was without doubt a tragedy, but conservatives make it sound as if Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno purposefully told the FBI to go in there and kill everybody. Do you really think that's what happened?
I guess I'm just looking for a little more perspective - I think conservatives do themselves and their beliefs a great disservice in their shrill demonizing of Clinton. But, I've run on for a while again, so I'll close by offering an olive branch to the other side. On the matter of perspective, congrats to Dubya for striking down the Reagan memorial. They were going to rename the capital after him at the rate they were going. W
Kevin, you bring up a few good questions that go to the heart of developing my political philosophy. Let me state simply that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights. At the federal level, the government's role is defined by a strict interpretation of the constitution. Government's role gets more tricky as one gets to the local level as Jonah Goldberg points out. The Principle of Susidiarity holds. Consider it analogous to the Republican talk of devolution.
In order to make this post short, I'll answer you're last question: "Why do conservatives despise the Clintons so much?" I can only speak for myself, but I don't think "the guy was basically a centrist." His policies ended up appearing that way, but they weren't when Clinton first came into office. Remember the economic stimulus package and the nationalized health care (HillaryCare) that both failed to get through the Congress because of the public's reaction to the radical natures of the proposals? Clinton has no core political philosophy. Just like Machiavelli's Prince, his goal was simply to remain in power and be loved by the public.
That lack of a core political philosophy is one reason for disliking the guy, but his lack of any moral standards is another. He lied and mislead a grand jury and now expects the Republicans to apologize for putting the nation through his embarassment. He took money from foreigners with ties to the Communist Chinese and cynically said all sides violate campaign finance laws. Coincidentally, the Chinese stole U.S. nuclear secrets. Clinton allowed 80 people to die in the flames of Waco and never fired anyone for the debacle. He sent heavily armed police to snatch Elian Gonzalez from a loving, extended family and shipped him off to a Communist dictatorship. Then there are the pardons. Bill Clinton has thumbed his nose at the law and at ordinary decency.
There's no remorse from the guy. In fact, if he can, he tries to make himself look like the victim.
But there is a huge reason many of us can't stand the Clintons: they get away with so much. Bill Clinton should have been impeached. Hillary should have been held accountable for her missing billing records from the Whitewater affair and her cattle futures bribe. Instead, she's the newest Senator from New York and has an $8 million book deal, while he gets $100,000 per speech and works on building his Presidential library. In a nation where many people believe that people reap what they sow, they see people at the highest levels of power do anything without any consequences. W
Ah, the battle is joined. Firstly, Sean (and please call me Kevin, not Mr. Murphy - it's so impersonal), since your question was directed to me and not some straw man Lefty, I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little more specific about which government-mandated confiscations and liberty-choking regulations I've presumably endorsed.
That being said, I think it's a fair question to ask why I throw around the word "progressive" all the time, and for the best, most in-depth answer I'll refer you (and everyone else) to a post I made October 12 of last year, where I rambled for some time about my feelings on progressivism versus liberalism versus conservatism.
If you'll permit me to quote myself to answer your question about conservatives/libertarians and progress, I said then and agree now with the following: "When it comes to live and let live social issues I'm all for libertarianism. But History has shown us that the absence of strong government does not create an Edenic utopia where individuals flourish, as some right-wingers would have you believe. Rather, as we saw in the Gilded Age, corporate interests soon occupy the power vacuum left by a weak Federal government. Indeed, it was a Republican President - Teddy Roosevelt - who first popularized the solution that a strong federal government had to be the necessary corrective to corporate power, and thus he molded the "New Nationalism" movement of his day."
Now, I know Mike posted here just the other day that he believes that Big Government only facilitates corporate power, and I'd be the first to admit (as I do in my 10/12 post) that the dire straits of the current political financing system lends credence to this view. Nevertheless, I think a strong federal government and assorted regulatory agencies (EPA, FCC, etc.) are necessary to protect and preserve the liberty of citizens from corporate exploitation. Now, we can argue about what constitutes corporate exploitation (and a good place to start might be the recent scuttling of OSHA's ergonomics rules - What's your take on that?), but unless you find child labor laws and anti-sweatshop laws to be egregious abuses of Big Government, I think you'd probably agree with me on the general principle.
Now, where I also break with government-bashing conservatives/libertarians in favor of progressivism is that, despite all the Black Helicopters and Steel-toed Boots, the Government is still us - you and me. It's not some external oppressive authority designed to rob full-blooded Americans of their liberties. It's a constitutional system of representatives elected by we the people every couple of years. The current campaign finance morass notwithstanding, the Government is as responsive as we are involved. (In fact, a very simple Progressive reform - which for some reason you never hear anything about - would be to make Election Day a Federal Holiday.)
A classic example of what I'm talking about is the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City five years ago. Here we have a fringe psychopath fueled by anti-Government hysteria who decides to blow up a Federal building. Well, guess what? That federal building was filled with ordinary Americans just like you and me, and even a day care center, for crying out loud. We are the Government - the more people who realize this and get involved, the better and more responsive system we'll have.
I get the sense I'm starting to repeat myself, so, Sean, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave you with a question of my own. Why do conservatives despise the Clintons so much? I don't think it's a exaggeration to say conservative Clinton-hating is often virulent and irrational to the extreme. I mean, the guy was basically a centrist. Can you explain it to me? W
Thank you, Mike, for this opportunity to blab to an extended audience. I hope you a Dineen enjoy Austin and Ireland. I do want a compare-and-contrast paper when you get back.
What should I contribute to WOIFM? Maybe I can deconstruct the meaning behind the name? What's the antecedent to the pronoun "It?" Maybe I should just hawk some of Mike's t-shirts? They're not that bad as long as you don't spill coffee on them. Maybe I can find spiffy new toys for Tucker? Maybe I'll just offer links to/about the greatest economist of the 20th Century? Maybe I can find out from my counterpart, Mr. Murphy, why it's "progressive" to have the government confiscate more and more private wealth and wrap tighter regulations around human activity? Does Mr. Murphy think conservatives/libertarians like myself are opposed to progress?
Yes, Kevin, this should be fun. W
Yes, folks. Strange as it may seem, it appears that upon considering the joys, jollies, friends, and family awaiting he and Dineen at SxSW and in Old Eire, Mike had what alcoholics commonly refer to as a "moment of clarity." As such, he has kindly allowed me to represent his guilty, ghostly progressive conscience during his blissful sojourn. Here's wishing happy and safe travels to Mike and Dineen, and I'm looking forward to continuing to provide y'all, the readership, with the timely links and quality commentary to which you are accustomed. Should be fun, eh, Sean? W
I suspect the next two weeks will be ones that I'll never forget - busy, thrilling, draining, relaxing, and rejuvenating. First, Dineen and I are off to the SXSW Interactive Conference in Austin.
Dineen will be a panel speaker on the oh-so-timely panel entitled Post-Napster: The Future of Entertainment Distribution. Catch her Tuesday, March 13 at 3:30 - 5:30 pm.
I, of course, will be tagging along for the sheer bliss of being there and meeting a whole bunch of folks I only know from online.
After that, we're off for a refreshing visit to Ireland, where we'll meet up with my sister, who has finagled her way into finishing her final requirements for medical school in Dublin. I have been to Ireland once before, for a total of three days, and knew immediately that it just wasn't enough. I got an awesome photo of a double rainbow while I was there, and I promise that I'll try to get some more this time. And no, I won't catch foot-in-mouth disease. I mean... well, you know what I mean.
And don't worry about Tucker. He's got a good friend coming over to house-sit and keep him company.
So, dear readers, you cry, "But what about us? Whatever will we read?" Fear not, for I Have Made Arrangements. During my absence, two talented, opinionated, and highly entertaining webloggers will be supplying All the Horsepuckey You Can ReadTM.
From the left: Kevin C. Murphy of Ghost in the Machine fame. From the right: Sean Hackbarth, a.k.a. The American Mind. Now, I want to see some fair blogging, no hitting below the belt. OK, to your corners! W
How timely: Ann Coulter blasts away at Newsweek's personal attacks on John Lott, the University of Chicago economist who authored More Guns, Less Crime.
Commendably, the Newsweek article did not repeat some of the old lies about Lott, such as that he was funded by the gun industry. It did, however, make up some new lies, such as that his research on the Florida election was funded by Republicans.
As Coulter points out, even those of Lott's critics who have studied his findings for years can't say that he's wrong. W
Angus: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. Homicide rates have fallen all over this country in recent years as well, and it had nothing to do with gun control. As I've pointed out, gun control demonstrably does not work here in the states. As it turns out, it's failed miserably in Australia, too.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (Australian Bureau of Statistics figures) Gun crime soars.. - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98
[Source: Second Amendment Sisters letter to John Olsen, Premier of South Australia.] The letter goes on to cite literally dozens and dozens of sources showing how gun-related crime in Australia has rocketed upward since the imposition of aggressive national gun control laws in 1997.
The gun-ban lobby has never been able to prove that their schemes work. Experience across the world, however, shows that their schemes will bring a plague of new crime and violence just like it already has to those states and cities which have foolishly restricted the right to self-defense. We don't want Australia's crime problem.
Incidentally, to amend the constitution here in the U.S. requires a vote of the U.S. Congress and legislatures in a sufficient number of states - the mode of governmentment in a representative republic. At no point does "democracy" - i.e. a direct vote of the people - enter into it. W
On my way to work today, I saw the following bumper sticker:
My BORDER COLLIE is smarter than your HONOR STUDENT.
In some cases, I'd believe it. W
Looking for contract legal work in the D.C. Metro area? Here's a list of staffing agencies that specialize in contract legal work including document review for large litigation projects and anti-trust cases. W
Wow. Harry Browne takes on Jonah Goldberg:
Both political movements are hypocritical. Conservatives sometimes claim to be for economic freedom, but the people they elect consistently vote for corporate welfare, foreign aid, government education, farm subsidies, government health care, and $2-trillion budgets. Liberals claim to be for personal freedom, but their leaders consistently vote to censor the Internet, put a V-chip in your TV set, continue the insane War on Drugs, and violate the Bill of Rights in every conceivable way.
I have nothing more to add. W
Matt wins the Hit the Nail on the Head Award:
I think the only tipping point we've passed is the "news media personnel must report anything resembling a shooting by a teenager as fast as possible and to as wide an audience as possible."
Now, if only such an award existed. W
The folks behind the Aimster Pig Encoder (a program used to scramble file names with in order to avoid Napster filters) claim:
Disclosing how the Aimster Pig Encoder works may be a violation of a federal law called the DMCA and subject to up to a $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison!
They seem to base this -ahem- novel legal theory on the DeCSS prosecutions, but they're flat-out wrong.
The Aimster Pig Encoder encryption program is not protected under the DCMA, because that act only applies to encryption designed to protect copyrighted material. Clearly, the Aimster Pig Encoder is exactly the opposite. So, nice try, but no cigar.
By the way, thanks to Dineen for coming up with the code cite. W
It is now 1:00pm. Comcast should have called over an hour ago to grovel for their incompetence in knocking out my cable service - last week. Further updates when nothing develops. W
In response to this week's school shootings in San Diego, Angus says:
Sure, sure, this kid broke the law, but without guns he wouldn't have been able to kill people so effectively. Okay, the centuries-old constitution of the USA supposedly doesn't allow it, so change the damn thing - it's only paper and the US is a democracy, isn't it? Remember: the harder it is for kids to get guns, the less likely it is that they will go on shooting sprees.
(By the way, Angus, we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.) Unfortunately, the response to this tragedy has been the predictable knee-jerk reponse calling out for more gun control. But the anti-gun lobby has the burden of proof, and has never been able to make the case that harsher gun laws would save a single life. In fact, California, the location of this tragedy, already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or handgun in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is prohibited.
California gun owners are registered, licensed, trained, and taxed by law. But this tragedy still happened. Anyone who's ever lived around Washington D.C. can see first-hand that gun control doesn't work. D.C. effectively bans all firearms, yet contends yearly for the dubious honor of being the Murder Capital of the Free World. In Northern Virginia, where gun ownership is protected by the state constitution and gun crimes are punished aggressively, the crime reports list peeping toms, public drunkeness, but few shootings. Virginia's gun laws may or may not deter crime (I think they do) but it's quite obvious that D.C.'s gun ban flat-out doesn't work. They don't work in D.C., they don't work in California, they don't work in anywhere else. Why would we want to write any more of them? W
If you're dumb enough to run .EXE files you get in your e-mail and you're dirty enough to want to see video footage of someone else's naked wife, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you catch a nasty virus. Please, keep all your naked wives out of my in-box. W
The more socialist governments of Canada and Western Europe seem a lot more humane to me than ours. And they have reasonable limits on things like CEO salaries.
Our economy is far healthier than any of the economies of Europe or Canada, which in turn drives better living conditions for all people. Isn't that really more humane?
You cited health care as an example, but our health care system, flawed as it might be, is far more advanced and accessible than their government-controlled schemes. That's why Canadians and Europeans who have the greatest need and the greatest means come to the United States for health care - because they can't afford to wait in line for socialist rationing of health care resources. Health care in the 19th century may have been pretty poor by modern day standards, but I'll gladly compare it to anywhere else in the world at that time.
People barely give to charity. More money is spent on pet care than all charitable giving combined. And I say people wouldn't give more to charity if they paid less in taxes.
You can say that all you want, except it's not true. It is a well-established fact that people who have more money give more of it away to charity, and that people who fear economic insecurity are less likely to give to charity. When the economy is strong, charities have banner years as they did in the recent economic boom. But when the economy sags, charitable giving dries up. Clearly, a vibrant, growing ecomony not only serves charities better, it eases the demand on their resources. And the less oppressive our government is, the more likely our economy is to stay strong. W
The Napster injunction came down today, and it puts a lot of the burden on the recording industry to do the investigative work. The full text of the injunction has been posted as well.
[Judge] Patel said that once record labels present Napster with lists of songs they want banned, Napster has 72 hours to block them. ...the record labels must notify Napster of the title of the song, the name of the artist and the name of the file containing the infringing material.
To the consternation of legal scholars, no court has yet considered a crucial legal issue in this case: whether Napster is shielded from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Either way, though, the company will have to reach some sort of truce with the record companies if it hopes to exist after the ligiation dust settles. W
In response to my note about Harry Browne's article on the death tax, Sean Meade said:
A government that small would also not be able to control the multinational corporations who would eat our lunch. There would be no redistribution of wealth, and the gap between rich and poor would grow.
So, our government "controls the multinational corporations," does it?
[pause for laughter]
Sean, don't you realize it's the other way around? The bigger and more powerful government gets, the more reason large corporations have to sway that government to use its power on their own behalf. There are countless laws on the books which exist solely to protect Big Business, at the expense of the consumer. HMO's are largely immune from lawsuit. Credit card companies are tightening the screws on personal bankruptcy. Billions of dollars every year get stolen from your pocket and mine in the form of taxes and are spent on bloating the government bureaucracy and subsidizing corporate coffers. Even if "redistributing wealth" were an appropriate government goal, precious little of our tax money actually finds its way into the hands of those who need it - probably far less than if taxes were reduced to a rate where everyone had more of their own money and could give more freely to charity.
And that's not the worst of it - the bigger and more powerful government gets, the further the playing field tilts against the ordinary citizen and towards the powerful and wealthy, who have the ability, connections, and resources to influence government policy and navigate through the dense thicket of government regulation. Excessive regulation smothers small business while big business plows through with an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants; excessive taxation obliterates small business while big business dips just enough into its coffers to avail itself of the loopholes and subsidies - when the stakes get bigger and the rules more complex, who do you think will win?
Over human history, governments have most often served as a tool of oppression than of protection, while limits on government have given us freedom, peace, and prosperity. When we wake up and strip our government of the powers outside those limits we set for it over 200 years ago, we will be a freer, happier, and more prosperous people. W
The right reasons to oppose soft money bans include:
...along with many others you might think of. Here is the wrong reason to oppose soft money bans: your party will take it in the shorts if they pass. W
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling that the KKK could adopt a highway. The Missouri stretch of highway was the Klan's second choice, since the Robert C. Byrd Highway was already taken. W
No snow yesterday, and what fell this morning has already melted. So much for the "science" of meteorology. W
Lyn and John are worried that ICANN et al. may restrict the dot-org top level domain to not-for-profit entities. An ICANN document on the proposal suggests it may not be as bad as feared:
Among the issues to be determined in this transition is whether .org should be limited to registrations only by non-commercial entities. ...Our objective is to provide a permanent and affordable home on the Internet for the non-profit sector and in so doing make a major effort to close the digital divide on a worldwide scale.
Another dot-org domain owner reported this exchange with Vint Cerf and Andrew McLauglin:
Once it was clear to him that I was discussing individual usage that was not "for-profit" although neither incorporated under any US state's "nonprofit" charter nor recognized as a "nonprofit" organization by the IRS, he reassured me that "there is no intention of excluding operations such as [mine] from .org." I also heard from Mr. McLaughlin that "ICANN has no intention of deleting existing .org domain names."
What I think this means - and I am by no means sure - is that for-profit corporations, partnerships, and other clearly for-profit business forms would be excluded from registration, but that individuals would be able to register for a dot-org without having to demonstrate any particular tax status. This would prevent corporations from poaching domain names in the dot-org namespace, and give registrants a safe haven from cybersquatting laws. (You can't be cybersquatting on microsoft.org if they couldn't possibly buy it from you...)
Not all non-profit entities are subject to U.S. tax law, and not all non-profit entities handle money - and therefore not all non-profits have any need for a particular tax status. So using that standard would be patently unfair. The only real way to accomplish this goal fairly would be to exclude unabashed profiteers (businesses, in other words) from the dot-org namespace. Any other scheme, to me, seems like it would be too burdensome to be worthwhile.
In the meantime, I'm thinking about establishing a charitable foundation and throwing up a web page at wasylik.org. W
