September 04, 2005
Jonathan Rauch:
With It Takes a Family, Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the Left, but from the Right.
Terms like "left" and "right" become meaningless after a point, but Rauch's take is that replacing the individual with the family as the basic unit of society is an invitation to governmental growth, and that Santorum is drastically revising—perhaps even reversing—the Goldwater-Reagan formula.
Posted by: Attila at
03:30 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think Rauch may have missed the point of the family as the core unit of self-reliance...as it was back in the days prior to WWII. People took care of their own, took responsibility for their actions and didn't go looking for the Feds to bail them out.
THAT only started with the Depression and FDR's attempts to fix things. (Which didn't work, by the way. Only WWII got the country back on its feet.)
Posted by: joated at September 04, 2005 04:10 PM (OqZGl)
2
It is the family that lays the foundation for upstanding, intelligent, and self-reliant individuals. If you have sick or broken families, you have sick or broken individuals. It's the foundation. The soil out of which the tree grows.
Posted by: mariana at September 04, 2005 09:14 PM (qiUf8)
3
"Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government."
I don't know that it is so much the reverse as it is "cart before horse". While I agree with his premise that strong families represent the bedrock of society, I'm not so sure his vision of a government that is strongly invested in "promoting virtue" is wise. Everything he says (as quoted in that article, at least) about the connection between duty, responsibility and freedom rings true, but this is a matter of the heart, and not (in my view) something any government institution can inculcate.
What shall we call this new governmental function?
"The Department of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"? This is the sort of thing that invites comparisons to the Taliban.
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 05, 2005 10:05 AM (xdX36)
4
I should add, that I don't mean to say the government can't do the opposite. The last fifty years have proven that it is very capable of damaging the family as a social institution. But the way it has done so is by making people dependent upon government, and also thereby discouraging and drawing artificial proscriptive boundaries around people's natural inclination to private charity.
So is the solution really a need for new government intervention to "shore up the family", or would the family as an institution be better served by the government disentangling itself from the programs and policies that have weakened the family over the decades? The latter would be more in keeping with the conservatism of Reagan and Goldwater.
If Santorum wanted to shore up anything, he would do well to shore up his own church, by working to remove the artificial secular/religious barriers that have pushed religious institutions to the sidelines of American society.
In the absence of "gummit programs", it has traditionally fallen to religious institutions to provide all of the things he seems to wish goverment to provide in this regard. The chief difference, of course, is that one's participation in a church community is an entirely voluntary association.
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 05, 2005 10:27 AM (xdX36)
5
I think my relationship with the government is as a free agent who has entered into a whole set of contractual arrangements with another individual (my "husband")
Our child, when he/she arrives, will be encouraged to see his/her relationship with the government as one that is monitored by mom and dad, who act as his agents in that regard.
I would hope that those of my friends who don't ever intend to marry or have kids wouldn't become second-class citizens if Santorum ran the circus.
In other words, I see the individual--meaning any adult--as the actor who has a direct relationship with the State.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 06, 2005 02:03 AM (EtCQE)
6
You know, I've read a lot of these kind of articles that decry the replacement of the The Family with The Individual as the unit of society, and I have to wonder... precisely what government policy is it that has caused this to happen? The New Deal? The Estate Tax? Married Filing Separately? It's described in almost horror-movie tones, like some miasma is floating out from Washington DC causing people to think of themselves as individuals (the horror!) through insidious mind control or something.
It is true that now we look to the government to provide some things that once were provided by a family or community. While reasonable people can argue as to where the line should be, I'm not wild about going back to, say, the days when one's personal safety was only as secure as the power of one's family.
Society has been moving from a society of families to a society of individuals since the start of the Industrial Revolution. (The collapse of families as people migrated from agrarian communities to cities has been decried since the late 1700s... not exactly the golden age of socialism.)
It wasn't FDR that created today's society: it was the factory, which fundamentally changed the way in which wealth was created. Adam Smith and Marx agreed on that point, if nothing else.
Posted by: Christophe at September 08, 2005 10:14 PM (td8Qe)
7
I don't really agree. I honestly believe that most of the Founding Fathers were big on individual rights--they just couldn't agree on whether women/black people were individuals, and had to put that off for another day.
Of course, I'm talking political philosophy, and you're talking economics, so we may have an apples/oranges thing going here.
This may or may not be the time to point out that Goldwater was big on gay rights--for his time, at least--and point out that he and Reagan really took a live-and-let-live attitude thereto.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 08, 2005 10:45 PM (EtCQE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 03, 2005
And Yet More on NFRA
I'm at the Ronald Reagan Awards Banquet. In a separate entry I will list the winners of the various NFRA Awards. Soon, there will be a showing of
In the Face of Evil, the documentary about Ronald Reagan's fight against communism, and how it bears on the current terrrorist threat. Of course, I've already seen it, at the
Liberty Film Festival last fall, where as I recall it was the world premiere.
At the moment, Tom Tancredo is speaking, and giving an eloquent argument against illegal immigration—an issue that most of you know I've been vascillating on for some time. (Why? Because part of the whole issue has to do with how the economies in our border states are going to conduct their business without the labor normally provided by "illegals," so the "seal off the borders and everything will be lovely" people [those who oversimplify the practicalities of the process] bother me. But the security issues tied into this are sobering, and a good place to start.)
Tancredo discusses the fact that some misguided teachers in schools with a lot of immigrants teach a cartoonish version of multiculturalism, encouraging high school and junior high school students to identify with their native lands rather than this country.
"I don't care whaere you come from," he says. "All I ask is that once you get here, you do what most of our grandparents did, and become part of this nation."
He gets a standing ovation.
And I have a lot to think about.
Posted by: Attila at
09:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.
1
i am still on the 'wait and see' fence, too. but it's not just border states. i'm in idaho and the farmers and landscapers have inordinate amounts of illegals working. they h ave been wilfully dependent on them for years. in the summers when i was a teen looking for work in a small rural town, the girls would hoe beets, beans, the boys would set pipe and buck hay, both would work in the orchards. by the time i was a senior, those jobs were hard to find. there are lots of non-border cities that use illegals in industry, construction, domestic help. one issue i find disconcerting is the diseases the illegals are bringing/will be bringing in, particularly tuberculosis. it is an expensive and extraordinarily expensive disease to cure/manage. i think a guest worker/visa think could be one judiciously used part of a policy, but the illegals and legals need to be required to speak english, and take advantage of any opportunity to become citizens. they also need to pay into the systems that provide them health, education. can't pay??? one of the reasons vicente fox doesn't want the border closed is because the workers are sending millions and millions of dollars back home to mexico. if we are going to let them come, there needs to be certain social, legal, and monetary expectations put upon them and their employers. right now, it's free gratis for both.
Posted by: sue at September 05, 2005 10:24 AM (i0+3P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sex and the Married Conservative
Dr. Judith Reisman is speaking on the counter-assault against Alfred Kinsey and his research, for which she has led the charge.
Her thesis is that Kinsey's research is based on outrageous sampling errors, and that some of his claims about the sexuality of the "greatest generation" reflected some of the claims made by Nazis in propaganda distributed to British and American troops.
One of the most egregious aspects of Kinsey's research, of course, was his promotion of the notion that young children were sexual in a way that excused adult-child sex.
There's more. I'll definitely have to read Dr. Reisman's latest book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences and review it herein.
Posted by: Attila at
03:10 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course, Kinsey being dead puts him at something of a disadvantage when replying to critics.
It is clear from reading her book (the things I do for work) that Reisman's problem is with sex research, period, full stop. One just shouldn't do it. From a New Yorker article:
“One doesn’t measure American sexual habits,” (Reisman) said. “That’s not a science.”
So, I think we can conclude that her problem isn't so much Kinsey as anyone talking about sex.
She also makes some astonishing claims, such as that gays were not persecuted in Nazi Germany (based on the fact that Ernst Rolm was gay). She states, categorically, that gays recruit with the tenacity of the Marine Corps. She repeats charges that Kinsey asked for pedophiles to molest children, a charge that has never been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever.
And as far as Kinsey somehow enabling pedophilia, I would be curious to see if any child molester in the history of the United States has successfully avoided prosecution based on a defense with roots in the Kinsey Report.
Kinsey's research is a legitimate subject of criticism, as any scientific research is. But given the rather scattershot nature of the criticisms, it appears that the real issue here is a desire to put the sexual genie back in the bottle, rather than any of Kinsey's conclusions per se. Sorry, but time only flows one direction.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:39 PM (td8Qe)
2
Interesting. I'll have to read some of the back-and-forth before I can reach a fully formed conclusion.
But if we do throw any of his research out, we'll still have to keep the Kinsey scale.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:04 PM (P2mGf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More from the NFRA
The official slogan for this year's NFRA convention is "turning up the heat on the left." Get it? We're in Scottsdale, Arizona, toward the end of the hot days of summer. This is a glorious part of the country, though: the physical beauty here is astounding.
Mike Spence, introducing Bob Barr as the keynote speaker, modifies the slogan, making the point that what NFRA really needs to do is to "turn up the heat on the GOP."
Bob Barr is speaking on the inadequacy of passively depending on the two-party system to represent the people. He makes a number of truly excellent points, one of which hit me right over the head: Republicans continually preach to African-Americans about the need to objectively evaluate what the Democratic Party is (and, more usually, is not) doing for them. True conservatives need, he tells us, so "practice what they preach.
Rep Barr also analyzed Ronald Reagan's presidency, pointing out that he was an outsider at the beginning of his first term, and remained an outsider until he left office.
Rep Barrr is an amazing thinker, attempting to raise the level of debate about all issues, and explaining that the important thing is to talk about substance, rather than to go along with the prevailing wisdom. Make sure to talk reasonably with people whom you disagree with, he exhorts us: you may have an opportunity to carry an important message.
He defends his relationship with the ACLU, pointing out that despite the many areas of disagreement between his own positions and those of that group, there are important discussions to be had about some provisions of the Patriot Act, and we'd be derelict to gloss them over.
In conclusion, he reminds us that "expediency is for cowards. Principles are for winners."
Posted by: Attila at
02:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Republicans continually preach to African-Americans about the need to objectively evaluate what the Democratic Party is (and, more usually, is not) doing for them
No doubt having a group of rich, white men lecture them will be a new, refreshing experience for black Americans.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:21 PM (td8Qe)
2
Wait. Are you mad at me?
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:05 PM (P2mGf)
3
Are you mad at me?
Not a bit of it. But sometimes a nice, juicy piece of irony is a bit too tempting.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 05:24 PM (td8Qe)
4
Irony is in the eye of the beholder. You're presuming that most members of the GOP are rich and white and male. And of course you see that, because that's what you're looking for.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 06:02 PM (uPa3y)
5
Hello again. Very much enjoyed meeting you at the event Friday night. Just added your site to my "Blog Round-up" favorites.
The best thing the GOP is doing is appealing intellectually to black folks. Rock on Ken M. His out reach to black folks is the real deal and the Dems can't handle it. As I told you last night, there are lots of us who have left their intellectual plantation. I ain't pickin' their cotton!
This president has been GREAT. And in my opinion, Condi the only logical choice to succeed him!
Condi - 2008
Posted by: Keith J at September 03, 2005 07:37 PM (kygMG)
6
Thank you, Mr. James. You're a true gentlemen. And thank you for not coming down too hard on my liberal friends who would like to think they speak for you, Councilwoman Johnson, Secretary Rice, Rep. Watts, General Powell, and—as I understand it—the entire
brotherhood.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 08:56 PM (P2mGf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Fork in the Road for Vermont
I had a wonderful discussion at the Goldwater reception with
Greg Parke about his campaign against Sanders in one of the most interesting states in the union: from where I sit Vermont appears, like Southern California, to be an area of libertarian principles that have become so watered-down as to turn the entire state a sort of pale blue hue.
And yet, Vermont has an extraordinary commitment to the Second Amendment, and awash in firearms, which can be carried by anyone. There are those, of course, who maintain that Vermont is adversely affected by people from the northeastern metropolises, who live there only part-time—but vote "full-time" in Vermont as well as their home states. This theory holds that the full-timers—"real Vermonters"—aren't big nanny staters. I'm not so sure, but I'd like some sort of national resolution on this issue, since plenty of New Yorkers declared openly in 2004 that they intended to vote in their home states and the state that contained their vacation properties. (After all, Florida was a big swing state, and the end justified the means.)
Whatever the situation, Vermonters need to consider whether they were well-served by Jim Jeffords, and want to repeat the "Democrat-in-independent clothing" mistake.
Parke is a personable man with a passion for this country that is underscored by his two decades in the USAF. He cares about the people of Vermont, and wants to educate New Englanders about the true consequences of statism. He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety. We've all had these arguments with our liberal friends, and all experienced that exquisitely frustrating "Ben Franklin" moment in which we declare they deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Do we mean it? Well, probably not. But the whole thing is an uphill battle.
If you're in New England, spread the word about Lt. Colonel Parke. If you're in Vermont, remember to vote, and consider helping out with the campaign.
Posted by: Attila at
01:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Let's just say it Liberalism = cowardice. You see it manifested in the liberal reaction to 9/11 and again in the reaction to the disaster in New Orleans.
While I hate to sterotype them I am going to. Liberals in general seem totally unwilling to take action to defend their country, their way of life or even help their fellow man.
It get tiresome hearing these armchair quarterbacks constantly criticizing men of action. Men of action by definition make mistakes.
Jim Jeffords is a perfect example of a liberal politician without any moral compass at all. A man totally unable to represent the very people that elected him due to his selfishness and lust of personal power. Not only that but he displayed a profound lack of judgement when he decided to become an "independent". His actions reduced the quality of the represention the people of Vermont have in the Senate from one of some influence to a nutured ineffectual presence in the Senate that is not respected by either party.
The people in Vermont deserve to be represented by a Senator that believes in SOMETHING!
Posted by: Doug at September 03, 2005 04:55 AM (6krEN)
2
He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.
Right on! I mean, what are we to make of such left-wing liberal ideas as the War on Drugs, War on Pornography, and the PATRIOT Act?
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:17 PM (td8Qe)
3
Well, it all has to do with how you define words. The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
I myself fit one of those definitions--but not the other.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:07 PM (P2mGf)
4
The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
Indeed so. Allow me to drop the snark tone for a moment to comment on the point without using either version of the l-wod, lest my point be confused.
The point of the excerpt that I originally quoted seemed to be saying that leftists are ready to trade off any kind of liberty in exchange for security. I have a hard time fitting that statement with even the rightist stereotype of a leftist, let alone the reality as I see it. I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Most of the really bad-idea tradeoffs between liberty and security that I've seen post-9/11 have been signature causes of the right. It seems that the civil rights agenda on the right, at the moment, can be summarized as, "If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the government." If that isn't the most anti-libertarian idea imaginable, I do not know what is.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 05:30 PM (td8Qe)
5
I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Sure see "Amendment." As in, "Second."
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 06:05 PM (uPa3y)
6
Well, even I am not crazy enough to kick the Second Amendment tar baby. I will note, however, that the left has no monopoly on wanting to expand government power to give people a warm fuzzy idea that something is Being Done.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 11:23 PM (td8Qe)
7
Fair enough. See "Homeland Security, Department of."
Or, you know--nearly any piece of domestic legislation with Richard Nixon's signature on it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 11:36 PM (uPa3y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 02, 2005
Drafting Dr. Rice!
I'm live-blogging the Goldwater reception at the NFRA, where
Glorious Johnson is speaking in favor of drafting Condi Rice for the presidency, an idea that some in the room seem skeptical about as she begins her remarks. Johnson's speech is taking the shape of a history lesson, explaining the relationship between the black population in this country&mdashblack women in particular—and the GOP.
Did you know that Sojourner Truth was a Republican? Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican? Rest assured that the ladies Councilwoman Johnson spoke of were all represented in my high school women's history class, and they include my all-time favorite black female historical figure, Harriet Tubman, who rescued more slaves than anyone else in American history, and carried a gun as a conductor on the "Underground Railroad." Councilwoman Johnson notes that Tubman was also a soldier, a spy, and a nurse in the Civil War. Johnson furthermore mentions Ida B. Wells, Mary Terrell, and Mary McLeod Bethune as historical figures with ties to the GOP.
Dr. Rice is ready, Johnson assures us, ridiculing the often-repeated notion that Rice needs to go to Alabama or California to run for some small office before she can represent this country in the White House. (What we have in Condi Rice, as Dr. Mason of AFR constantly reminds us, is a candidate who has virtually served an apprenticeship for the highest office in the land.)
Johnson's speaking style is very dynamic, in the gospel-influenced cadence of many African-American orators from the South, and she dominates the room—not an easy task while there's a bar and a buffet in the back. A lot of the NFRA delegates haven't seen each other for a long time, and they are dying to get re-acquainted: Johnson reminds them of the important task facing this party over the next two years in picking the leader of the free world. Her voices carries, and her message resonates. Despite themselves, the socializers in the back are carried up in the excitement, and begin chanting "Condi!" under the councilwoman's direction until the whole room is united.
Johnson is, she tells us, on a mission. It's a mission shared by many others. Most of the people working on this campaign have had a sort of "Eureka!" moment in which they take the idea seriously for a minute or two, and then the light breaks as they realize that Dr. Rice is uniquely positioned to carry on the aspects of the President's legacy that are working well, and to improve on the areas where it isn't.
There's usually a moment in which they consider who can best stand up to Hillary Clinton in a Presidential debate, and then a smile begins to play on their lips. And then they kind of exhale and admit that "there might be something to this. Perhaps she isn't just a fantasy candidate after all."
Get out your surfboard, and ride this wave. Because it's coming at you soon.
Posted by: Attila at
07:05 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
1
One can assume that Condi's
retail therapy response to the greatest American crisis since 9/11 will not figure large in her election material.
As a Democrat, I am down on my knees praying that Condi Rice runs for the Republican nomination. After watching the Republican Party rip itself apart... President Hillary Clinton? Lacks ambition. We could get a Lawrence Lessig/Hugo Chavez ticket elected.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 02:58 PM (td8Qe)
2
Ooh, thanks. I've been meaning to take on "shoe-gate." Stay tuned.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:09 PM (P2mGf)
3
I hold Dr. Rice in high regard and personally find a Rice/Ridy ticket very interesting. Impossible to support as a conservative, but interesting all the same.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at September 03, 2005 09:30 PM (DiPBR)
4
Hey Attila, good job. Can't wait till Condi jumps in. She'll kick Hillary's last ass.
Posted by: Section9 at September 07, 2005 07:19 AM (vpTm5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Live, from Scottsdale . . .
it's
Little Miss Attila! I'll be here all weekend, blogging the
NFRA Convention. This is the organization that Ronald Reagan called "the conscience of the Republican party," and it's an important voice (or rather, an important set of voices) within the conservative movement.
Ironically, WiFi is easier to access here than it is from my hotel room a few miles down Scottsdale Road at the Holiday Inn. If I'm not successful at logging in from there tonight or tomorrow, it's all over between me and the Holiday Inn. I thought it was True Love (plus, with my Auto Club discount, it was $15 cheaper there than it would have been to stay here at the Chaparral Suites), but the WiFi here is better, and I may just return all the jewelry and lingerie Holiday Inn has given me and leave them for good this time.
I mean it. Do you hear me, Holiday Inn Express? I even joined your little business travellers' club and everything. I feel so used.
There's a sense of excitement here as the various groups set up their booths and begin setting out their literature. The John Birch Society has a table here, as do the Stop the FTAA activists. And, of course, Team Condi.
I'll try to resist the temptation to make up a series of fake off-hours "adventures" to regale you with, in the manner of Goldstein's RNC convention blogging. But I won't make any promises, other than to say I really am here at the convention site, and it's pretty thrilling, to tell you the truth.
The Goldwater Reception begins in less than three hours, so at some point I do have to hop back to my hotel and put my suit on. Councilwoman Glorious Johnson of Jacksonville, Florida is speaking on behalf of Americans for Rice and the National Black Republican Convention, and I don't want to miss that.
If you're trying to get through by e-mail, rest assured that I shall get your missives at some point, from one of the two hotels. But you might want to send a carrier pigeon into the desert as a backup.
Posted by: Attila at
03:27 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But how would we know if they were real or fake? At least with Goldstein we had a track record sufficient to give pause as to the veracity of the reported adventures.
But...wait. Since we *would* be more inclined to believe them, that would make them all the more juicy to read.
Please do regale!
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2005 09:01 PM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
56kb generated in CPU 0.0265, elapsed 0.1688 seconds.
213 queries taking 0.1583 seconds, 443 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.