conservatism

ConCon Mondays in April

In this instance, ConCon isn't shorthand for Constitutional Convention but for Consecutive Conservative Mondays in—wait for it—deep-blue Ithaca, NY.

 

 

There have been reports of pigs circling McGraw Tower.

 

 

The Cornell College Republicans are sponsoring a series entitled "American Voices" with a lineup of notable speakers on three consecutive Mondays in April:

  • Monday, April 8   S.E Cupp, Cornell class of 2000, 6:00pm in McGraw Hall 165. Topic: the liberal media
  • Monday, April 15   Rep. Tom Tancredo, 6:00pm in HEC Auditorium in Goldwin Smith Hall. Topic: immigration & national identity 
  • Monday, April 22   Herman Cain, 8:00pm in Call Auditorium, Kennedy Hall. Topic: the American Dream & free enterprise
A map of campus can be found here. McGraw and Goldwin Smith Halls are on the Arts Quad; Kennedy Hall is on the Ag Quad, at the corner of Garden Ave. and Tower Rd.
 
Click on the images below for more about the speakers:
   
                  
 
For more information about the series, contact the president of the Cornell College Republicans, Jess Reif, at jar453@cornell.edu or (630) 863-3773.
 
Let's have a great turnout for these dynamite speakers and demonstrate that conservatism of all stripes is alive and well in Tompkins County and environs and—yea, verily—even on the Cornell campus.
 

Thelma and Louise discuss the fiscal cliff

No, wait...it's Dora and Peregrina in an earnest tête-à-tête whilst simultaneously having coffee and their hair done (bet you didn't know you could do that at the Queen Diner—don't let the health department in on it.).  

Are you frustrated by the all the fiscal cliff talk?  So's Dora.  As always, the old gal makes a lot of sense.

 
 
 
 
 
Going Over the Cliff
 
“Are you happy with the direction the Republican Party is taking on the fiscal cliff?” my friend Peregrina asked me as we had coffee at the Queen Diner in Dryden. I had to admit I am not.
 
We agreed that a status quo election in which the popular vote split almost in the middle and which gave continued control of the House to the Republicans by a large margin was no mandate for the President’s radical income redistribution or grow government schemes.  Contrary to media claims, the Republican Party is not dead or even moribund.  About two-thirds of the states have Republican governors.  Even residents of the City of Ithaca have a Republican representative-elect now.  Yet, the Republican Party is suffering from a kind of sickness in which many Republicans neither speak out proudly for our basic principles nor vote on election day.
 
Now I’ve been a registered Republican since I turned 21, 67 years ago, and was eligible to vote (yes, they made you wait until 21 back then).  The main thing I like about the Party is its fiscal conservatism though that has been much lacking among some Republicans of late.
 
Ronald Reagan, bless his soul, said that he had not left the Democrat Party, it had left him.  I’m now beginning to feel the same way about the Grand Old Party (GOP).  In Washington, numerous “Republican” office holders have been talking compromise on basic fiscal principles.  Compromise works when the other side is genuinely interested in reaching a viable solution, but you can’t negotiate with people like the President who think it must be their way “or the highway.” Merely kicking the problem down the road or supplying our ever growing government with more funds just won’t work nor can we keep borrowing forty cents of every dollar we spend.
 
You can’t solve an overspending habit by borrowing, you have to do it by tightening your belt, Peregrina agreed.  Imagine a family, she suggested, that makes $60,000 a year but spends $100,000 every year.  How?  By borrowing money from banks, maxing out credit cards, and using friends and relatives year after year.  Sooner or later, the house foreclosed, bankruptcy filed, overspending must stop.
 
So, I’ve voted for Republicans only to see that when they get to Washington they get infected with “going along to get along” and to see them abandon the basic Republican principles of smaller government and lower taxes.  Sadly, they no longer feel willing to stand up and speak out for fiscal sanity.  They become “me too” Democrats, always wanting to spend more and to solve all problems with government “solutions.”
 
There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Common sense says that whatever we spend must be paid for by someone.  The taxing the rich mantra espoused locally by such voices as Barbara Lifton just cannot work.  Why not?  Because the rich just aren’t rich enough.  The tax increases sought by the President from successful people would only bring in about forty billion dollars a year, enough to run the government for little more than a week. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan lowered taxes and found lower taxes actually mean higher government revenues and prosperity for the American people.  Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes during a depression and got a longer depression. Yet the class warfare advocates continue to assault success and make it more difficult though the revenue that can be raised is merely politically symbolic and not meaningful.  They ignore the facts and follow a false dream.
 
But the problem isn’t revenues, it is spending.  Government is simply too big.  Some Republicans go to Washington to cut its size and end up increasing it.  That won’t do.
 
So, what must happen?  Statist Republicans and taxing Republicans must be given fiscally conservative and committed primary opponents.  We must confront our Republican office holders and let them know they will have internal party opposition if they persist.  We must get them to adhere to principle.  Or, we Republicans must turn to and work with the more committed Tea Party folks in trying to take back the Republican Party.
 
 
 
 
UPDATE:  I guess great minds really do think alike  wink
 

Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012

Time for a Spartacus moment amongst conservatives?

And at Ace:


 

Down at the Sidetrack Tap

I was looking around for a past David Brooks NYT column and, as always, got sidetracked—ended up reading his column from earlier this week, "The Great Divorce."

It's...well, just read it yourself.

The best part of this particular meandering, though, was coming across a commentary on Brooks' column at a liberal blog:

I regret that I’ve had to be working on something else today, because David Brooks is off the Oblivious Scale today. He has reached a level of cluelessness remarkable even for Brooks...
 

...Un-freakin’-believable. There hasn’t been this much upper-class-twit obliviousness concentrated in one person since Marie Antoinette.

Actually, I think Chuckles Schumer (thanks for that one, South) ranks right up there with Brooks—but I digress.

And how's this for Brooks-on-a-spit:

It’s like Brooks is some sort of Sisyphean device that has one purpose:  to take any possible social paradigm observation, smash it with a sledgehammer, and reconstruct the bits in order to fit his god-awful worldview of bipartisanship, even if the pieces don’t fit and had nothing to do with the original observation in the first place, and he has to repeat that until the end of time.  There are people that just don’t get it, people that don’t get it on purpose as satire, and then there’s David Brooks (who should be regularly harvested for the rich oil of contempt for anyone who makes less than six figures that he drips with) who somehow manages to make “not getting it” into an exciting new field of scientific endeavor.  I’ve got a fiver that says if Brooks was jammed together with any actual American middle-class salt-of-the-earth family for more than 3 hours, there would be blood all over the carport and a Garden Weasel shoved in a very uncomfortable place upon his person.

In short, libs don't like Brooks because he's a "conservative;" honest-to-God conservatives don't like Brooks because he's not an actual, you know, conservative although he's supposedly the token one at the fishwrap of record.

Face it, David: no one likes you.

Unintended consequences

That pesky law can have tragic manifestations.

At other times, though, it can be a good thing. Here it is again...at Accuracy in Media (via New Zeal), an interview with Craig Shirley, author of Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign that Started It All, which details Reagan’s pivotal 1976 presidential campaign, and Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America, which looks at the 1980 campaign, as well as most recently December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World.  

Funny how the idea, put forth by leftist pundits such as Cynthia Tucker, that President Reagan couldn’t win the Republican Party nomination this year because he would be considered too moderate (or downright liberal) has unintentionally led to a resurgence of interest in Reagan amongst conservatives and liberals—and it couldn't happen at a better time.  From Roger Aronoff's interview with Craig Shirley:

SHIRLEY: I’ve heard that, and that’s utterly ridiculous. The people who say that about Ronald Reagan [that he couldn’t get the Republican nomination this year because he was too moderate] don’t know about Ronald Reagan. He was a conservative. Some of his positions had evolved over the years—he started out, in the ’30s and ’40s, as what he called not a “bleeding heart liberal,” but, as he said, “a hemophiliac liberal.” He was a rip-roaring supporter of the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt, and in 1948 he campaigned for Harry Truman as part of “Hollywood for Truman.” In 1950 he campaigned for Helen Gahagan Douglas against Richard Nixon for the Senate out there. His long political climb had started, and he didn’t really arrive at a conservative philosophy that was based on the individual—and, more importantly, based on the spiritual individual—until the late ’70s, and by then, his philosophy was fully formed as far as individual freedom, rights, privacy, a hatred of totalitarianism—especially as embraced by Soviet Communism—and an oppressive welfare state here in this country.  I’m hard pressed to think, when they say—I think it’s just a dumb throwaway line, Roger, to be quite honest. To say that Ronald Reagan wasn’t conservative enough for the Republican Party, it’s ridiculous. When they say that, they don’t offer up any evidence. I’ve spent a lifetime studying Ronald Reagan, working for Ronald Reagan, writing books for Ronald Reagan…I don’t think there’s anybody who has been as steeped in Reagan history as I have. Those people who make those statements, they’re just making foolish statements...

Alrighty then.  You can hear the interview re: Reagan, Pearl Harbor, and other topics here.

Happy birthday, Mr. Lincoln

Essay at Heritage:

On February 12, America will celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s 202nd birthday, but will conservatives celebrate his legacy? Lincoln is a pivotal figure in American history, yet some conservatives are wary of him. Lincoln, the Left proclaims and the Right fears, is the father of big government.

Conservatives shouldn’t be fooled. If big government means a permanently large and growing federal budget and a vast civil service (see William Voegeli’s Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State), then Lincoln may deny paternity for both. As Allen Guelzo explains, while the federal budget indeed ballooned to meet the cost of the Civil War (from $63.2 million in 1860 to $1.29 billion in 1865), it shrank once the war ended (back to $293 million by 1870). “If Lincoln had plans to create ‘big government,’” Guelzo concludes, “none of his successors seems to have known what they were.”  Similarly, while the federal government employed more people during the war, the number shrank once the war ended.

In reality, big government is a Progressive invention, designed by Progressive thinkers such as Herbert Croly and John Dewey and perpetrated by Progressive presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These men embraced big government, because they held certain principles opposed to the limited government framework set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

By contrast, Lincoln held a different set of premises. He defended the Constitution and “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” To understand Lincoln, therefore, we must turn to the documents he held so dear....

Read the whole thing.

Subscribe to conservatism