“I used to say, ‘There is a God-shaped hole in me.’ For a long time I stressed the absence, the hole. Now I find it is the shape which has become more important.” — Salman Rushdie

I am not a Christian.

I was technically raised Jewish, but in reality, I didn’t have much of a religious background at all growing up. As an adult, I took greater interest in religion, but have never really managed to find a spiritual home.

When I married my wife, a Christian, I saw the difference that having such a background can make. Tomorrow, she and my two young boys will both head to church as they do every Sunday (something that is unfortunately rare in our affluent and over-educated subculture) to joyously celebrate the Easter holiday. She’ll head straight to services after getting off her night shift at the hospital.

While I only rarely join them, I am very glad that my children are getting the religious background that I never had. I can see first-hand in my family’s experience the value of a strong religious belief, and a strong religious community, It acts as both a strong faith-based fellowship and as a welcome check against the materialism and superficiality of our modern culture. It also wards off a belief that we can create a heaven on earth–an arrogance which lies at the heart of the worldview of our political opponents.

This afternoon I was reading “Notes on the Way” an obscure essay by George Orwell, himself an agnostic, but one who, in many ways longed after religious tradition and understood its vital role at the heart of Western Civilization.

Writing about the views of the first modern secularists, Orwell noted

“It was absolutely necessary that the soul should be cut away. Religious belief, in the form we had known it, had to be abandoned. . . . Consequently there was a long period during which nearly every thinking man was a rebel and usually quite an irresponsible rebel. . . For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen our efforts were rewarded and down we came. But unfortunately, there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses at all. It was a cesspool filled with barbed wire. . . . So it appears the amputation of your soul isn’t just a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic”

The wound has a tendency to go septic.

Indeed it does. And even as someone who suffers from time to time with my own “God-shaped hole” I know that it is the shape, rather than the hole, that is most important. Our society’s wounds are currently suffering from an infection by modern secular liberalism, the ideology of a group of men and women determined to exalt the state to a place in our lives where only God should go.

For those many Red Staters whose belief in the wounds suffered by Jesus two millennia ago, and his subsequent triumph over them, provide a permanent inoculation against any ideology which seeks to turn a  politician into our savior, I offer my blessing to you this Easter, and hope that for both you and your families, that this will be a season of joy.

I hope that got your attention. 

I was exchanging email with an acquaintance the other day, a senior Senate staffer for the “Evil Party”—I was bemoaning the destruction of what was left of the Constitutional republic by Obamacare and castigating her for her (very indirect) complicity in it. Her snarky response, sadly, had the flavor of truth. She noted that both Medicare and Social Security had been extremely controversial when passed but were now almost politically untouchable. Though I disputed this in the long-term sending her back an equally snarky email noting that perhaps they would not be so popular when the full bill for these programs came due, on a practical level, it was hard to argue with her contention.

This got me thinking about something I have wondered about for some time—perhaps these programs wouldn’t be so popular if people knew how much they were paying for them today. As most Red State readers (but probably not so many in the general public) know, ½ of our Social Security and Medicare Taxes are technically “paid” by our employers.

Of course anyone who understands economics knows that in fact, it is the employees who bear almost all of the burden of the employer tax (Note to any actual economists reading this: I am aware the technical academic literature on this is complex, but this simplification is good enough for didactic purposes). In other words, again, to simplify a bit, the employer has a line item in his budget for wages. If he has to pay a Social Security and Medicare taxes worth 7.6% of his employee wages, he budgets that in for Uncle Sam and that is 7.6% less that he will pay to his employee. If he didn’t have to pay that amount, he would be able to pay his employee 7.6% more money. What economists call the tax incidence of Social Security and Medicare taxes falls almost entirely on the employee, even if it is technically the employer who pays the tax.

The political meaning of this should be obvious. If people realized that they were effectively paying twice as much for Social Security and Medicare as they think they are, these programs would be a lot less popular—and my Democratic acquaintance would be a lot less smug.  (I’m not even going to get into the Multi-trillion dollar deficits these programs are running) One could imagine several ways of doing this legislatively—everything from altering W-2 reporting to more radical and complext bills that would actually change who paid those taxes (while not, of course, actually increasing the tax burden on anyone)

And so my modest proposal for Republicans who care about entitlement reform: Lets double everyone’s payroll taxes—or rather, to put it in a less provocative way, let’s make sure that voters see that they are already paying 2X the payroll taxes they think they are paying.

If we want to have any hopes of reining in these runaway spending freight trains, the first thing we should do is make sure that taxpayers understand how much their tickets really cost.

I’m not sure how much to believe his recent rebirth as a strong supporter of Federalism and the 10th amendment, but there is no doubt that he skillfully read the mood of his electorate far before most of the timid establishment Republicans did. The fact that former Campaign for Liberty and Tea Party activist Debra Medina got 18% (Within 13% of Hutchison) and more than a quarter million votes despite starting with no name recognition and being outspent 20 to 1 is also pretty remarkable.

But by embracing the Tea Party early on and attacking Hutchison  (accurately) as a creature of the Washington Perry was able to hold his right flank while marginalizing Hutchison.  Given Hutchison’s high favorables coming in, it was a remarkable political performance by Perry.

The thing I find most encouraging is that candidates who ran on strong anti-Washington, pro state sovereignty , pro-10th Amendment platforms took 70% in this race.  I hope Perry is as bold in the general on these issues as he was in the primary.

In any case, I have little doubt that if he can handle Hutchison this easily, he can handle Bill White.

I’m a Ron Paul supporter.

A few years back, that was an anathema in a lot of conservative circles.In the wake of CPAC, I think it’s safe to say things have changed to a significant degree and I wanted to use this post to explore what those changes might mean for the future of the conservative movement, and how the RedState community and other conservative activists can help make sure those changes help us grow a stronger conservative movement, rather than a more divided one.

Before you typecast me, I should also say that I’ve avidly supported and donated to (among others) Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Doug Hoffman, even Scott Brown (though I must confess that that one was a strictly tactical play.)In other words, I consider myself a mainstream, small-government conservative–libertarian-leaning certainly, but not a Libertarian by any stretch. In part ofmy day job I work with a number of prominent figures in the conservative mainstream—the man who hired me for that job was one of Reagan’s most trusted and senior aides—and a name that would be known to everyone in the RedState community.

Two years ago, I felt like a pariah in conservative circles for supporting Paul, and doing so quite avidly.It’s not that I fail to recognize Paul’s shortcomings, his occasional forays into Libertarian fundamentalism, some of his loony followers, his legislative impracticality, his sometimes simplistic views of foreign policy questions (although as someone who is not a fan of nation-building or Neo-Wilsonianism, I’m closer to Paul’s views on Iraq and Afghanistan than I am to the views of most folks here at RedState).But to me, and many others those weaknesses were overcome by his strengths—a willingness to focus on conservative first principles when too many other Republicans were forgetting them, a willingness to criticize the Bush administration for its many departures from conservatism, his ardent defense of freedom as a core conservative principle, his reverence for the Constitution, and many others.Among a field of candidates in 2008 that often seemed often all-too willing to toady up to a Republican establishment that had sold conservatism down the river, Paul’s approach was a breath of fresh air.

Our efforts a few years ago were generally received with great hostility by the conservative establishment, but things have changed a lot in two years, with a list of conservative luminaries too numerous to mention acknowledging Paul, ranging from Sarah Palin to Ann Coulter to Glenn Beck.Numerous others have taken on Paul’s causes, such as Jim DeMint, the Senate’s first Sponsor of Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill. Closer to home, Erick’s endorsement of Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky was noticed and greatly appreciated by many Paul fans (it is important to note that while Rand Paul shares many of his father’s views, in generally both in style and substance he is also closer to the Republican mainstream).Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul helped a*a lot*.I’ve been a bit involved with Rand Paul’s grassroots and I can tell you that the more polite reception he has gotten (despite the D.C. establishment led by McConnell being as hostile as ever) has helped tremendously in mainstreaming that grassroots so that they are working *with* rather than against other party conservatives.On Paul-related message boards and forums, the crazies have been diminished greatly in number and the practical libertarian-conservatives who want to work with other GOP candidates have seen our numbers and influence greatly increased.

This is a long way of saying— respect is a two way street.There’s no doubt that among Paul’s following there are some that are truly unhinged.But recognize that the disrespect shown to Paul by many establishment Republicans had (and has) a lot to do with their anger.And there’s a huge not-so-silent majority of his supporters who don’t tend to spend all of their time picking fights on Internet forums.Many of them are now beginning to play an active role in Republican Party leadership.And anyone who has been around the Tea Party movement knows the critical role that Paul’s followers have played there. Since we feel that we are out there fighting for conservative principles, we take the nasty personal comments some make about Paul and his followers seriously—I know I do.If you don’t like the nuts, ignore them and reach out and strengthen Ron Paul’s many mainstream conservative supporters.The more of us there are, the more power we have to shut up the crazies.We may not ever agree on every principle, but we ought to be able to work together to defeat the Obama nightmare by realizing our many common goals.

Overall, as someone who considers myself a mainstream conservative, I’m more encouraged than I dared hope I would be two years ago about the ability of the Paul wing to get along with other groups within the conservative coalition.But I want to end with a warning note: some in the conservative blogosphere and most in the conservative establishment were quick to downplay Paul’s straw poll win.That is a huge mistake.I agree those who say that Ron Paul is very, very unlikely to be the Republican nominee in 2012—but, believe me if he runs, he will be a *big* factor in the race.Paul’s support is real and it is not just deep but broad, especially among younger party activists.

His 2008 effort was disorganized and had no time to build—he raised a lot of money, but the money came too late and the media didn’t treat him like a first-tier candidate.Despite all of this, he took well more than 1 million votes in the primaries and finished quite well in several contested caucuses. All of that has changed in 2012—Ron Paul has the money, organization and message to be a major factor in the 2012 primaries if he runs.Even if he does not run, his organization will deploy usefully on behalf of candidates that fight for small-government conservative principles.That’s a good thing.

I have no doubt that Paul’s army can be a big factor in helping organize a GOP victory in 2012 and beyond but if they (we) are gratuitously insulted (e.g the booing that came from some establishment corners when the CPAC straw poll result was announced.) or told that we are not “real conservatives” it is just as likely we could be looking at a nasty scene on the GOP convention floor– andthat Paul voters will stay home in November, rather than actively mobilize to support other GOP conservative candidates.

Idon’t want that to happen, and assuming we all share the goal of stopping the leftist juggernaut that threatens to destroy this country, I think it’s safe to say few others on this forum do either. So I end this with a plea—please welcome us in – don’t shut us out. If someone’s a crazy ignore him or ban him if you have to, but in general try to smile tactfully at the idiots and welcome in the many of the rest of us who want to be powerful activists for a reborn conservative movement in the U.S.If you passionately disagree with Paul’s ideas on this or that issue, have the humility to at least consider the possibility that Paul and his numerous followers might in fact have a point worth considering. You’ll catch a lot more flies honey than you will with vinegar. Where we disagree, let’s do it without being disagreeable.

And lets keep our eyes on the prize—ending the Democratic Party’s attempts to run this country off a cliff. Together we can lead a great conservative rebirth in this country.

Lets do it!

In an otherwise fairly irritating op-ed published in Yesterday’s NY Times,  the writer Ishmael Reed made a remarkable claim– That all 43 board members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (I.e. the organization that puts on the Academy Awards, and selects the award winners, among other activities) were white.

Now, as a resident of a fairly wealthy part of California, I am fully used to the hypocrisy of “limousine liberals” and “do as I say, not as I do” liberals, and Hollywood hypocrites, and basically, the entire panoply of liberal dysfunction that we have here in the Golden state.

But nonetheless, I thought, surely, the board of directors of one of Holywood’s most important organizations, an organization and industry headquarted in Los Angeles County (approximately 30% white Non-Hispanic) couldn’t possibly be so clueless, out of touch, and so hypocritical as to have a board-of-directors as white as the Mississippi Democratic Party circa 1950.

So I checked for myself, and it turns out that I’d overestimated liberals once again.

Amazingly, the Academy’s 43 member board, which represents an industry that never ceases to lecture benighted Americans on racism, imperialism, greed and a variety of other ills supposedly endemic in anyone who doesn’t support the policies of the far left of the Democratic party (Did any of you see Avatar?) couldn’t bother to let a single member of a minority group have any voice in its own affairs– But hey, they’re making progress– only 37 of 43 of the board members are men!

Now let me back up and be clear, I’m fully in favor of the rights of folks to associate with whomever they please. And I hate the racial/gender bean counting that is so in vogue with the left in this country. In my perfect world, organizations should be able to put whomever they want on their boards without worrying about whether it meets someone else’s diversity checklist.

But when the Board of Governors of one of the most politically correct left-wing institutions in America is as white as the political pundits as MSNBC , I think they need to be called out for their hypocrisy.