I know that there is a massive protest planned for tomorrow in Washington DC, and elsewhere. Tea Partiers and their allies, like FreedomWorks, and others will be descending on Congress in a last ditch desperate effort to stop healthcare reform. Apparently, many of you are able to take time to go wave signs, sit in congressmen’s offices, shout slogans, and generally make a nuisance of yourselves. Instead of doing something productive with your time, you’re going to make crude home-made signs and clog up the traffic in DC (and elsewhere) and make it hard for the people working on important fundamental reforms to our healthcare system.
So I thought to jot a little note for all of you protesters and activists who will be out in force tomorrow and other days like tomorrow:
Thank you.
Know that there are a lot more people like me than there are people like you. I tried to take the day off to make the event, but just couldn’t manage it.
Thank you.
Behind each one of you who was able to take the time off from work and family to be there stand dozens of people like me who would desperately want to be there by your side, but simply cannot. I know that you have jobs, you have families, you have responsibilities as well — and yet, you are spending your own money to travel to DC, taking vacation time you might have spent otherwise, to go defend freedom.
Thank you for making the sacrifice.
I’ll be making some phone calls and emails and such when I can tomorrow in some feeble effort to try and help roll back the tide, but please know that I — and many other like me — truly appreciate what you guys and gals in the trenches are doing and will be doing.
So go wave those signs, go shout those slogans, go make a nuisance of yourselves (while obeying the law, of course, since we’re not Democrats or ACORN professional agitators), and let our “leaders” know that we’re pissed off and we’re not gonna take it anymore.
You are the voice of the silent majority; know that a vast legion of hardworking Americans who cannot make it tomorrow stand beside you in spirit.
In all seriousness, if this guy can deliver on what he’s saying in this speech, he should be our candidate in 2012. He won’t need more than 2 years to do what needs to be done in NJ; most of his changes will happen in this year and next.
But holy cow, this is the kind of executive we need in the White House:
The recently released Mount Vernon Statement is an attempt to formulate a common vision for what conservatism in the 21st century means. It isn’t the definitive statement by any means, but a catalyst for further discussion, as this excellent diary makes clear.
There is, however, a topic on which Mount Vernon Statement – as well as any other conservative-focused statement of principles – is completely silent: What is the proper role, if any, of racial and ethnic identity within conservatism?
I believe this is an important question for conservatives to answer. The Left has successfully branded conservatism as a racist, whites-only movement – despite such characterization being patently false. The recent example of the Dallas Tea Party’s devastating response to Keith Olbermann is just one example:
But despite the success of the Dallas Tea Party in pointing out the hypocrisy of Olbermann and his fellow travelers, fact remains that the traditional conservative response – that we are all Americans, and that we as a society need to be “color-blind” – is inadequate. That it ought to be adequate is besides the point; the world is as we find it, not as we wish it to be.
The “content of their character” line of thinking is entirely too vulnerable to (a) the natural human urge to be proud of who they are, and (b) prevailing social theories about institutional racism and the like. Again, it doesn’t matter that those ideas are nonsense on stilts; they are extremely attractive. I know, because in my younger days, I not only bought into both but actively preached those ideas as a race activist.
The Appeal of Separation
As some of you know, I am an Asian-American; specifically, a Korean-American. What most do not know is that while in college, I was very much a leftist – an out and out Marxist – and a race activist. Race activism, ethnic activism, were at the center of my life since sometime in high school to well after law school. Without going into gory details, suffice to say that I had impeccable credentials in the race mafia business. Obama ain’t got nothin’ on me.
I do not think I am engaging in self-congratulatory remembrance when I say that I successfully radicalized a generation (or more) of Asian-Americans at a major American university. And I know how effective I was in using ethnic identity to motivate, energize, and convert people to the Left. I took the movement past my own campus, and helped radicalize students in dozens of other campuses, always on the basis of ethnic identity.
My professors, fellow travelers on the road to “social justice”, aided and abetted my campaigns. The administrators, also true believers in the goals if not the tactics of the racial equality racket, were handing me thousands of dollars in funding even as I was calling them racist pigs and the like. The politico-entertainment-media complex, staffed by comrades from the wider Progressive movement over decades, helped me with lurid stories of racism and greed on the one hand, and glorification of the resurgent black power figures like Public Enemy and X-Clan on the other hand. [By the way, I still love the music, long after the message has turned sour.]
So I know the mechanics by which radicalization happens, by which ‘awareness raising’ occurs, and I know that the Left isn’t entirely cynical; indeed, many of the foot soldiers are well-intentioned, good hearted, true believers.
The question for conservatives is, why was I so successful in turning a social organization into a political one? Why was it so easy to take kids who had come to college to get a degree, to go to a few parties, and to have a good time, and turn them into committed soldiers in the revolution? (And ‘revolution’ is figurative speech only in part.) How was it that I could take a mild-mannered pre-med major and talk him into taking part in a criminal conspiracy to beat up a fellow student for the sin of expressing his opinion? (Thank God we never actually committed the assault and battery, but we were 100% serious about it.)
The answer, to me, is that every human being has a deep-seated need to belong to some small subset of the larger whole. Each of us wants to be different, to be unique, but at the same time, to belong to a group of similarly different people so that we’re not weirdoes. There is a very strong appeal to separation.
Consider fraternities on some campuses. They put their pledges through hell, embarrassing them for sure, and physically assaulting them in some cases, and the pledges voluntarily suffer through the ordeal in order to belong. For that matter, the campus Christian ministries like IVCF and CCC also used the natural human need to belong to a sub-group.
All human beings have a natural tendency to be proud of who they are, to be proud of their history, of their traditions and of their heritage. When Alabama alumni break out into “Roll Tide Roll”, that’s motivated by the same tendency to want to be proud of one’s tradition and history.
Throw in a shared language, shared culture, shared values and common experiences, and the pull is irresistible. Even today, even after my liberation from race-thinking, I find that if I have a choice, I’d prefer to go to a Korean restaurant over any other, no matter who else I’m with at the time. Even today, while no longer viewing every white person as a racist oppressor, and while thinking of myself as an American first and foremost in nearly every way, I ain’t gonna lie and say there isn’t a special comfort in being with “my people”. This is, I think, entirely natural.
Conservatives who rightfully fret about balkanization and self-segregation and the like are willing to dismiss this natural human urge towards separation, towards differentiation, as just some sort of liberal mental illness. This is a mistake.
Nature Abhors a Vacuum
The natural desire of people to be different and to belong to a small subgroup plays into the Left’s political theories of power and moral right arising from the collective. In fact, I would suggest that the philosophy of the human being underlying the political theories of the Left is not as an individual soul, but as the intersection of socio-historical forces. You are but the intersection of and sum of all of the collectives to which you belong: race, gender, class, education level, occupation, etc. etc.
The task of the activist, then, is to elevate membership in the collective that he controls to be the most important determinant of personal identity. To weld all the competing demands of the subgroups together, it is always necessary to have a common enemy that requires the cooperation – or in the parlance of the Left, solidarity – of many subgroups to defeat. Whites, Men, Corporations, whatever will work as long as they are sufficiently large and seen to have dominance in the wider society.
(By the way, this competition for primacy in personal identity is why there is a pitched intramural battle between the identity groups not seen by outsiders. Ethnic groups fight women’s groups fight gay groups fight political groups fight some other subgroup. The fighting over who will control the allegiance of ethnic women can get downright nasty in some cases.)
The competing vision offered by conservatives is one of fully participating as an individual in the Anglo-American tradition that is our common shared heritage.
To understand why this approach is lacking, consider the case of the diehard Bama alum who loves his Crimson Tide. The conservative answer to ethnicity is like asking him to care more about the SEC than his Crimson Tide. Some Bama fans might find solace in the fact that Florida won in 2008 (for example) since Florida is in the SEC, but I doubt many did; I’m sure no Bama fan celebrated Alabama’s win in 2009 because it showed how great the SEC is.
Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of a compelling narrative for how race and ethnicity, or other markers of identity, play into conservative principles, a person to whom such things are important in any way is naturally pushed towards the Left.
Consider the voting habits of Latinos and Asian-Americans. Many of them share so many of the values of conservatives, and yet routinely vote Democrat. Analyses like this one that says Latinos are driven by the issue of illegal immigration misses the larger point. Korean-Americans also routinely vote for liberals and Democrats, and illegal immigration isn’t even near the top of the issues list for us. In fact, we are family-centered, churchgoing, small business owners; yet, Democrats dominate the Korean-American vote.
I truly believe that one reason is that conservatives have no template for involving ethnic groups within the movement. Sure, the GOP has its ethnic outreach organizations, and every politician has some “XYZ Group for Senator ABC” type of thing – but those are mere power-grabbing interest group politics. And the Democrats are far better at that game than the Republicans are. LibProg political theory supports the collectivist assumptions behind race activism; conservative political principles does not.
Conservative Diversity?
The Left today owns the term “diversity” and the concepts underlying it. It doesn’t much matter that the Left’s version of diversity is the same as that offered by Apple for its iPod: you can get it in any color you want, but underneath, it’s the same machine. Nevermind that the diversity of the Left consists of a white liberal, a black liberal, and a gay Asian feminist liberal all loudly denouncing Bush’s illegal war; that’s the dominant discourse on diversity.
Conservatives are left with fighting against diversity either by parroting the main talking points of the Left, or by stressing the E Pluribus Unum ideal. We conservatives may have plenty of ideas on healthcare and the size and scope of government, but it isn’t that far from the truth that we have no ideas on diversity.
To take just one example, conservatives (myself included) are generally for establishing English as a national language. I personally know from experience how powerful language is in creating separation from the whole, and using that as a wedge for political radicalization. I know now that one cannot truly be an American without speaking English to some degree of facility. Without communication, there is no community.
But what do we say to the family (like mine) that sees tremendous value in preserving the language of our ancestors for personal and familial reasons? What do we say to those (like me) who feel that their children would lose something incredibly valuable, some real piece of what makes them who they are, if they were to forget their mother tongue? Relegating all non-English language to the private sphere might make sense in lots of ways, but it’s hard to characterize that position as valuing the differences within the larger context of civic unity. It also sets up the phenomenon of “dual consciousness” where we are always aware of when we are in the “American” mode and when we are in the “native” mode. It’s a strange but very real psychological and existential state.
I recently received an email from the same Korean Student Association I had radicalized in college. It appears they want to invite alumni to come back and tell the students of today about various topics. It gave me pause.
The old Marxist race activist me would have gladly welcomed the opportunity to go and awaken a few more young people as to their wretched history of suffering at the hands of the white man, the imperialism of American capitalists, the warmongering oil barons, and so on. I would have told them that they will face institutional racism, hidden hatred, and discrimination wherever they turned, and that only by joining together as a strong collective could they defend themselves from the depredation of the Man and his System.
But today, I literally have no answers for these young people. Do I tell them to go join the Tea Party Movement? If I do, what does that have to do with their common bond of heritage, tradition, and culture? The answer today is, “Nothing”.
Well, I’m not satisfied with that answer. The need to belong is both natural and strong. When libprogs have the ready answer within their theory of equality-through-identity politics (e.g., as long as the CEO’s of American corporations are not precisely the distribution of ethnicities in the American population, there is institutional racism), then as a conservative, I feel the need for something more.
Ethnic Politics and Conservatism
This issue is not, I think, simply a theoretical exercise. Nor do I think it’s just something that affects one guy who went from being a radical lefty to a conservative. American demographics is shifting, and human need to be different while belonging hasn’t changed in thousands of years.
There is no sense of belonging, you see, that comes naturally to the ethnic conservative. To the ethnic leftist, operating on the assumption that America is deeply racist, and that we minorities are always oppressed, it is easy to create the conditions for belonging to a subgroup of one kind or another pursuing one set of grievances or another. To us on the Right, operating on the assumption that individual liberty matters, that America is a great nation, and that shared civilization leads to a healthy civic society… ethnic politics is anathema.
We need a new program. A new way of thinking about the issue. We need to find a synthesis between the thesis of total assimilation and the antithesis of ethnic pride.
Sadly… I don’t have the answer. I wish I did; it would make my personal predilection easier to solve. Because you see, I still do want to do something for “my people”. I’d like to find a way to have more of them realize what I have realized – that the differences can be wonderful, but that we are all Americans in the end. I want more of them to realize that we are not strangers in a strange land, mere immigrants renting a space in the American co-op, but that we are owners and inheritors of the American tradition just like the gal in the Daughters of the American Revolution.
So, let’s start here. If you’ve read this far, then I know that you are as serious about this issue as I am. Perhaps you also are an ethnic conservative; perhaps you are white as the driven snow, or such a mix of cultures and traditions over generations that you’ve never known any other identity than “American”. Let me put the question to you this way.
What differences do we conservatives tolerate, indeed, celebrate? And what differences do we reject as taking us down the balkanized road of identity politics? Is there any basis for such a thing as conservative ethnic politics?
As the demographic trends in the United States moves towards ever increasing population of “minorities”, if conservatism is to be successful in the 21st century and beyond, I believe that it must have an answer beyond, “We’re all the same” to the issue of ethnicity and identity politics within a conservative framework. Because we are not all the same, nor should we wish to be the same.
I have no answers; only questions. But perhaps that is the first step towards finding an answer. So thank you for reading, and thank you for your thoughts.
I would like to propose the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“The President, members of Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, and all of their appointees or delegates, shall add the phrase ‘of your money’ to any communication about expenditures or revenues of the government.”
Today, President Obama is announcing $1.5 billion ‘of your money’ in funding for innovative measures to help families in the states that have been hit the hardest by housing market stress and unemployment. States where house prices have fallen more than 20% from their peak will be eligible for this funding. Such price declines, coupled with the effects of high unemployment, means that many working and middle-class families in these areas are facing serious challenges. The effort we are announcing today will provide support for state housing finance agencies (HFAs) to design programs tailored to the urgent needs of particular communities.
Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today announced that the Camden and Philadelphia area has been awarded $23 million ‘of your money’ in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths that will connect Camden and Philadelphia. The network will enhance regional economic development, spur job growth and protect the environment by getting cars off our roads.
My Amendment imposes no restrictions, no partisan politics, nothing but simply adding three words to communications by the government about spending and revenues. Please contact your congresscritters or State legislators to get this process rolling.
Amazing. Silent for months on end, and a second diary in the span of two weeks. Blame it on the snowmageddon that is blanketing the DC area, and shutting me down from going to the client’s office. But I’ll take it, as it gives me time to cogitate publicly and ask for your thoughts as well.
Assumptions Likely To Be Wrong
First, a bunch of assumptions, most of which are likely to be wrong.
The Tea Party movement will be the most powerful political force in 2010 and 2012.
The Tea Party movement (and related groups) means a realignment of American political will that has seen what Big Government actually means for the citizens of the United States, and will hand a very strong mandate for change for all those elected in 2010 and 2012.
The Republicans will reform internally, rid itself of lifelong politicians more interested in doing deals and bringing home pork, and more or less absorb the Tea Party movement, resulting in fresh leadership, fresh members in Congress, Senate, and statehouses and state legislatures across the country. In 2012, we will have a conservative Republican President, elected in a landslide of historic proportions that will once again make it clear that the American people want smaller, more limited government.
As a result, as of Feb 1, 2012, we will have a supermajority in both houses and the Presidency (as the Dems enjoyed throughout 2009). All of these Republicans will be principled conservatives.
Let’s say all these things come to pass.
The question is, how ambitious can we be? How ambitious ought we be?
Dismantling the Permanent Bureaucracy
The first issue for me is whether, if given the mandate and given supermajorities and the Presidency and all of the levers of power, we conservatives could actually roll back the creeping tide of socialism and government dependency.
Even Reagan had a tough time rolling back the creep; he may have tried to slow the growth of government, but he did not actually reduce the size of government. In fact, government spending grew under Reagan, perhaps not as quickly as it would have, but it did grow.
To be fair, he did not have conservatives in Congress to back him fully, and that was a different world politically. But let’s say the above Assumptions come true.
How ambitious can we be about actually cutting the size of government and eliminating the permanent bureaucracy? What departments ought we be targeting for elimination? How many federal civil service jobs could we think about eliminating? National Endowment for the Arts? Sure. What about Federal Housing Administration? The FDA? OSHA? The SEC?
And how do we ensure that the problem doesn’t return easily once the political winds shift, bringing different people into power?
This problem also extends into the states. Does New Jersey really need a Department of Health & Senior Services? Can the size of state governments be permanently reduced? Ought that be a goal?
Do we go all out and attempt a return to the original Constitutional principles of Federalism (see more below) and propose a Constitutional Amendment undoing the New Deal (and post-New Deal) understandings of the Nondelegation doctrine? Eliminate the ability of Congress to delegate regulation to agencies, and you pretty much kill the permanent bureaucracy. But is it wise policy to eliminate administrative agencies in the 21st century?
What is the right balance to be struck here?
Dismantling Entitlement Programs
Of course, you can’t talk about cutting the size of government without talking about the third rail of American politics: the entitlement programs. We all know that these programs are unsustainable and headed for bankruptcy. Prog-Libs pretend there’s no problem, or just kick the can down the road; conservatives know that the welfare state is the biggest threat to liberty and individual sovereignty there is.
How ambitious ought we to be in dismantling Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs? Do we seek reform of these programs, for example, by introducing market-based reforms such as private accounts? Or do we go the full monty and just get rid of them all, together with the administrative apparatus that has grown up around them?
What entitlements do we keep, either out of political expediency, or out of principle? Which do we seek to eliminate? How ambitious can we be? How ambitious should we be?
The New World Order?
Most of the sane recognize that the United Nations has outlived its usefulness, and indeed, has strayed far from the original vision for the UN. The current Pax Americana, in which we guarantee the peace and security of nations that criticize us for being warmongering cowboys, subjugate our national security interests to opinions of people from Brussels and Riyadh, and pay in blood and treasure to maintain order in an ungrateful world seems unsustainable to me.
If we have the mandate, and we have the right principled conservatives in office, how far should we go in remaking our foreign policy? Do we pull out of the UN, kick the corruptocrats out of the country, and refuse to treat Syria and Burkina Faso as equals of the greatest military power on the planet? Or do we seek reform of international organizations, under the principle of advancing our goals and our interests?
How serious ought we to be in dealing with the wannabe regional powers like Iran?
Do we seek to actually carry out the part of the Bush Doctrine that said, “You are either with us, or with the terrorists”?
Do we actually name the enemy we are fighting — Islamists — rather than pussyfoot around to win accolades from the Nobel Committee and the “Arab street”? Do we move towards a battle of ideologies and not just methodologies?
How ambitious can we be? How ambitious should we be?
Back to the Future of Federalism?
Supposing that we have the mandate, and the right people in positions of power, how far do we go in restoring the original Constitutional balance between the sovereign States and the Federal Government?
Do we seek to restore the America of Tocqueville where the Tenth Amendment was a vital thing, and the Federal government had its very limited, actually enumerated powers? Or do we leave such visions in the past (where they perhaps belong)? Should principled conservatives be seeking to restore the primacy and vitality of the Tenth Amendment?
Do we fight for the repeal of the 17th Amendment such that the Senate is restored to the original intent of being the place where the States are represented?
Do we seek to pass a Constitutional Amendment that limits the power and scope of the Commerce Clause, that has been the source of most of the erosion of the balance between the States and the Federal governments? Or is it enough to appoint and approve as many judges to every bench at all levels (Federal, State, Local) who are strict constructionists?
Finally… Can We Let the People Know?
Supposing for the moment that some sort of consensus on any of the above is possible, that we seek to permanently reduce the size and scope of government, return power to as local a level as possible, and reduce the burden of government both in money (taxes) and liberty (regulations), can we be open about the project to the American people? Or do we, like the Prog-Libs, need to hide the ball, pretend that our ultimate purpose is not what it is, and work on ‘framing the message’ and such?
I’ve been really absent from Redstate due to family and work (new startup company, two kids under five, and everything else that goes with it) and I do apologize. I try to keep up, but… let’s face it, Erick has built the best online community of political activists anywhere, and it’s hard to keep up.
But in any case, mea culpas aside, let me pop my head up real quickly to say that having watched Gov. Palin’s speech at the Tea Party Convention in full (available here on PJTV — skip the legacy media, support PJTV if you can)… I am more convinced than ever that Gov. Palin should be the next chair of the RNC. In fact, Chairman Steele should step down now, fly to Alaska, and fairly BEG Gov. Palin to take the job.
Erick has articulated why Sarah Palin is such a powerful and dynamic political force. I agree with everything he has written there. But there’s something more to her that I find even more amazing.
She is a full-spectrum conservative: fiscal, foreign policy, and social. She is on record with her pro-life position; in the speech itself, and the interview immediately following, she made an astonishing statement that our political class should not be afraid of affirming their faith in God and seeking divine intervention and guidance.
As a two-thirds conservative myself, such religious statements would normally make me nervous and wary. But not when it comes from Palin.
I don’t know why it is, but she truly gives me the sense that she believes what she believes and will not waver, but that she isn’t seeking to impose her beliefs on me via the force of government. She is the least threatening, least preachy social conservative on the national scene today. I do beg forgiveness from the SoCon members on Redstate for that last sentence, if it offends — I respect your beliefs and your positions, but you have to admit that someone like Huckabee is a bit over the top.
Then when she said that she would support candidates who got the basics right — smaller, more limited government, respect for the Constitution, and strong national defense — even if she disagreed with some of their positions on other issues, she won me over completely.
This is a woman who can unite not only the Tea Party partisans, but the entire GOP, while bringing the Republican Party back to its roots and back to its senses. When Palin spoke about how the Republicans should be thinking how they can bring in as much of the Tea Party under its tent as possible, I thought she was laying out a vision for a simultaneous reform of the GOP and the empowerment of the Tea Party movement through the political power that still exists within the Republican Party. She can build the big tent, accommodate the various factions, while reminding us all of the Basics: limited government, strong national defense, free markets, and values rooted in faith without overreaching.
Given what she’s been through in 2008, a run for President in 2012 is a bit too early for her, I believe. She wields enormous political power already as a private citizen. But the RNC Chair is a civilian position; it isn’t elected office. The RNC Chair is not responsible for governing; s/he is only responsible for strengthening the Party.
Granted, she doesn’t need the RNC to have the political power she already has. She is already more powerful, in my judgment, than Chairman Steele. But the RNC and the GOP need her. The Tea Party movement would only benefit by taking over one of the two major parties. And the country would benefit as a result.
It’s time the GOP rediscovered its roots and its core values. It’s time that the GOP listen to the People, as expressed in the Tea Party movement. It’s time that the Tea Party movement be lifted up, that every primary be contested, especially those of longtime Washington and Statehouse insiders who have forgotten the Basics. Imagine what Sarah Palin could do as the head of the RNC.
Run, Sarah, Run — but not for President. Not yet. Fix the GOP first, and help us set the foundation. Before you help clean out Washington, help clean out the Republican Party.
That I am a fan of Sarah Palin is not, I think, a secret. That I did absolutely nothing for the 2008 election until McCain named Palin as his running mate is true. That I regard Sarah Palin as the future of the Republican Party, and absolutely the most astonishing politician I have seen since Ronald Reagan, may be sign of bias and foolishness on my part… but it is nonetheless true.
Because I think Sarah Palin is the most gifted politician in a generation — quite possibly since Ronald Reagan himself — with an incredibly compelling personal story and rock-solid principles, I regarded her recent resignation as a real positive, as Kowalski did, because she is now free to become the focal point of both the national conservative movement and the conservative wing of the Republican Party. She astonished me with her decision to resign. If she never runs for elected office again, well, that’s her decision. I suspect that we’ll hear from her again.
That is all secondary, however. Because today, she astonished me again. Here’s the story from Mashable:
Sarah Palin yesterday announced her plans to resign from the role of Governor of Alaska, leaving the press clueless as to why. Does she plan to retire from politics completely, or is she preparing to make a 2012 presidential bid? Palin is talking to no one…except Twitter and Facebook. In fact, Palin used her Facebook page to criticize the mainstream media for their treatment of her.
The press appears somewhat frustrated by the decision, with the AP producing a full-length article today discussing the governor’s most recent Tweets, including: “Lots of celebration of Independence & Alaska’s 50th Anniversary of Statehood.” It was only thanks to Twitter () that the media knows where Palin was today, the Associated Press adds – she was at the Juneau Fourth of July parade. Her spokesman wasn’t aware of her plans, say reports.
And she posted a statement on her Facebook page, again circumventing the press entirely. Mashable’s comment was:
The statement gives us little insight into Palin’s future direction, but the strategy is remarkable: with no press release on Palin’s site, a Facebook statement and some Tweets are all the press has to go on. A sign of the times, perhaps?
My comment is, “YOU GO GIRL!”
Perhaps Palin, more than any other politician in recent memory, understands that the MSM is not only not her friend, but her enemy, actively seeking to destroy her politically (and personally if that’s what it takes). Perhaps the ambush interviews by Couric and Gibson and countless others during the 2008 campaign made her realize at a deep level that as long as she has the (R) after her name, she can expect neither fairness nor truth from the press.
With no immediate need to campaign for anything, I believe what Sarah is doing is showing all conservatives and Republicans the blueprint for future media strategy: DON’T.
Social media represents the next battleground for communications, and I rather think that Sarah is trying to build something that no one else in the Right has been able to do: an alternate channel for connecting directly to the American people, bypassing the panjandrums of print and broadcast entirely.
Any fairminded or relatively neutral individual wanting to know more about Sarah, her views, her policies, can now simply follow her on Twitter, or check out her Facebook Page. No more distortions by the editors of various dead-tree newspapers. No more quotes taken out of context by Democratic operatives with jobs as “reporters” — at least, not without direct and immediate source available for all to see on the Web, since said “reporters” will just be copying and quoting directly from Sarah’s social media efforts.
The haters on the Left will hate her no matter what, and they’ll spam her Facebook page or Twitter with vile idiocy. But the rest of America can see how silly, how immature, how vile the online Left really is as a result. This too will result in good things for Sarah.
This is an incredibly smart, incredibly insightful, and incredibly forward thinking move on Palin’s part. If she keeps this up, simply choosing to ignore the MSM and using social media for all of her communication needs, she may be able to change the political world as we know it.
Someone in the comments said Sarah should become a commentator on Fox, alongside Hannity and Rove. Perhaps she will. But I rather think she should become a regular contributor to Redstate.com, Townhall.com, and other online centers of conservative activism. The fairminded, persuadable voters in the middle, will be able to hear directly from Sarah, see her opinions for themselves, and — because social media is inherently a two-way medium — be able to ask her questions, give her opinions, and otherwise interact with her in ways that no pre-fab bullshit TV “town hall meetings” can provide.
This, my friends, is the way forward for conservatives. Because we’re not about flash and glamor and “framing the debate”. We’re about truth and what actually works. The Left — so lauded for using social media to elect Obama — simply cannot tell the truth about its plans, its goals, and its methods. We can. And we should.
Imagine if Sarah is successful in getting her message out to the people of America through social media, simply by starving the MSM of any direct information, interviews, or special access. Should not every Republican politician not follow suit? The American people will give everyone a fair shake; the American media, not so much. Why continue to pander to our enemies in the media, as if their imprimatur of favor as a “good Republican” matters one bit to voters?
Oh, she astonishes me, Sarah Palin does. On Independence Day, she has declared independence from the press. And critics and professional campaign operatives who tut-tut at her “stupidity” and “naivete” should remember that the declaration by a bunch of ragtag colonists back in 1776 was greeted with jeers and hoots as well.
I haven’t blogged or commented in a very very long time. Part of it is the pressures of daily life, of trying to start a new business, of worrying about finances without a regular income, and raising children. Part of it is not having much to say just now.
But earlier today, I received an email from a dear friend who was extremely depressed about the current situation and the trajectory of the country. She asked for some encouragement, some signs of hope. I wanted simply to share that letter with all of you. Forgive me my presumption that perhaps these words might offer some solace and some hope to my friend, and to my Redstate friends and comrades.
—
Dearest XXX,
I’ll be honest — it’s been hard here as well. There really hasn’t been much reason for hope in the survival of freedom. It’s as if all of the dire prophecies of Atlas Shrugged are coming true.
But it is the darkest before the dawn. In a way, I feel glad that we as a nation have the opportunity for choice. Until now, I believe that native-born Americans really have not had a reason to choose freedom. The hysteria from the Left about theocracy and Bushitler police states was mere froth at the mouth rhetoric. The average American, easily duped by the media and the PC police, went along with the talking heads, only to discover that card check is being pushed through, that the Feds have apparently discovered the power to run car companies, and that the government can in fact tell you what you can make at your job. Repression — however soft and kind yet nonetheless repression — is coming.
Americans, born into blessed freedom that they so take for granted, have no understanding of what it’s like to live in a society where one criticizes the government in whispers and only to the closest of confidants. Americans have no idea what it’s like to live in a country where the Government chooses which company will succeed and which company will fail. Americans have no clue what social control really feels like, because they have always taken for granted the idea that no one can tell them how to live their lives. I do, because Korea under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan was just such a place, and even as a small child, I knew instinctively that I and my family were but subjects of the government elites.
Our generation — the Gen-X in particular — will need to make a choice. Either freedom is important to us, along with all of the ugliness, pain, and nastiness that freedom brings with it, or it is not and we will go along with the visions of the anointed and become well-cared-for sheep.
I know where I stand in that, and I’d like to think that more and more Americans are slowly — oh so slowly — but surely waking up to what it feels like not to be free men and women.
It’s hard to have faith. But if it were easy, would it be faith? It’s hard to hold on to freedom. But if it were easy, would we cherish it?
You’ve asked for reasons for hope. I give you three. They may be meager, but they’re what I have.
One, we have been through this before. The Wilsonian era was far worse, perhaps, than even the Age of Obama. I urge you to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg if you haven’t already. In a way, it’s comforting to know that we have, as a nation, lived through a fascist era before and still came out with more freedom than any other nation on earth. True, we were harmed by the Progressive Era, and perhaps one day, we will undo some of that damage, but we did come to our senses as a country.
Two, I still believe in the innate character of the average American. Not of the elites, who believe themselves to be the Anointed, immune from repression and persecution… until they fall from power, or find themselves in the looters’ sights. But the average American, who just want to be left alone to raise their families, do those things the elites find so repugnant (like going to NASCAR and watching American Idol reruns), I think retains a deep streak of independence and common sense. Even in Obama’s America — maybe especially in Obama’s America — people don’t relax when they see a police car on the highway behind them; they silently want the cop to pass them by and leave them alone. I think most Americans remain silent, the proverbial Silent Majority, watching with growing unease with which the Left now in power is screwing them. It only takes a spark to light that fire.
Third, even amongst the elites, I think there’s a growing sense of buyer’s remorse. I am enjoying incredible schadenfreude that Wall Street, which has so heavily and so heartily supported Obama and the Democrats these past few years, is the very first to be put on the sacrificial altar of equality, economic justice, and “stabilization”. I see the eagerness with which institutions like Goldman Sachs, whose employees had contributed to Democrats 3-to-1 over Republicans, try to pay back TARP funds as quickly as possible in an effort to escape being told by the federales how they can run their business and how much they can pay their people. Perhaps they have learned their lesson?
We can’t relax, of course, and we must continue to strive to be happy warriors. But there is reason for hope.
The Left will overreach. They simply cannot help themselves. Since their goal is not happiness or peace or growing the economy or any such practical worldliness, but the actualization of a vision, of an ideal, of a dream… they cannot help but overreach. Plus, the Obama Administration is quite simply one of the least competent, least able, and least representative administrations in history, coupled to one of the most corrupt and most radical Democratic parties in history.
I say, let us be happy. What have we to be depressed about? Either we win and restore the rule of law, love of freedom, and a return to proven principles of social organization, or we lose, suffer what we must, and have the satisfaction of having fought the good fight. This world, after all, is not the end.
I’m a terrible, terrible Christian. Perhaps unworthy of the claim. But put to the test like this, I have to fall back on that simplistic faith. Even this is meant for a reason — even if that reason is simply to give those of us who care about freedom, about country, about what America means, to have something against which to struggle. Let’s say that all of our struggle is in vain, and my children will have to listen to stories of when Daddy was young and could post things like this on a blog and not have to worry about getting a visit from government officials, or have to worry about getting called into the boss’s office for a quiet chat. Even then, I know that I can stand before the Judge and say I was not asleep, I did not succumb to temptation of servitude, and that I was on the side of Liberty.
The Lefties are in fullblown Obama-Happy Mode these days. The other day, I heard an advertisement for some glossy photo book tribute to Obama, from his childhood days to his “historic victory”. Y’know, the kind of glossy books that Sports Illustrated does for victorious Super Bowl teams?
In any case, my own anticipatory delight has been climbing along with their joy. Because they are absolutely, 100% sure to be disappointed, disillusioned, and dispirited by their Messiah. And that right soon.
So… I wanted to start a project that I am calling the Schadenfreude Bus Watch.
I would like to catalog all of Barack Obama’s promises during the various campaigns, both primary and general, and track them over the next four years.
It appears that he’s already backtracking on the whole “US Troops Out of Iraq Now” deal.
The thought of the gnashing of teeth this will cause amongst his International ANSWER and Code Pink supporters is simply… delicious.
This is a man who threw his own grandmother under the bus. He threw his pastor and spiritual mentor of twenty years under the bus, after saying he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could his own grandma. He’s thrown his economic adviser, and his foreign policy adviser, and his Muslim outreach adviser all under the bus.
I have no doubt there’s room under that there bus for various parts of the Obamanation.
So… who can help me?
I would like his promises, links to them, and help keeping track of when he goes back on his word, when he ‘adjusts his promises’, and so on and so forth.
So it came to pass that on that fateful day in November, the year of Our Lord 2008, the American people chose as the President of the United States a man destined for failure (more on this below). He ran on a platform of No Platform; a campaign of No Promises; a message of Hope and Change. And he won. And the expectations for him are not those that a human being can meet, nevermind just an inexperienced politico from the Chicago machine.
Like many conservatives, I have spent the last day and a half in a sort of a daze. Apart from the justifiable celebration that America has finally moved on from the 20th century by electing a black man to the highest office in the land (which gave me undeniable pride), there was not much reason for celebration for those of us on the Right.
Yet, this evening, today, I am slowly thawing from shock.
And I find that I am able to smile.
Rather than anger, I feel… pity. Yes indeed. I feel sorry for the ‘victors’ on the Left who are still deep in their revels. And I find myself trying to suppress feelings of anticipatory schadenfreude.
Oh the wailing and the gnashing of teeth that will emerge from the Left when they realize that The One is actually not a god but a human being, and a not very honest one at that. When they realize that all of their problems will not disappear because Obama has taken the office, what profound disappointment and disillusionment await them? When the anti-war crowd learns that Obama Administration will pursue four more years of failed Bush policies in Iraq and elsewhere, what sort of heartrending pain will they feel? When the free lunch crowd comes to realize that not even Obama can overturn the laws of the marketplace, what sort of wailing will we hear?
Sure, the media will cover for him, as they have from the very start of his public career. But even that has limitations. Americans, both Left and Right, will not believe that the Moon is made of Stilton simply because Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews tell them it is. At some point, the truth will come out.
So what I find this evening is that faith endures. Hope may be a thing with feathers that so entrances the Left, but Faith, that blind, illogical thing intellectuals fear so much, is a rock in a stormy sea. It endures.
I had faith in the American people that they are not fundamentally socialist. That faith has been rewarded in a way, and betrayed in a bigger way. But I choose to see most of those who cast a vote for Obama as victims of the Obama Bamboozle Machine, rather than as willing fellow travelers on the Marxist road. Once they realize what it is that they have actually bought on November 4th, I suspect the buyer’s remorse will be strong and fierce.
And perversely, this electoral defeat renews my faith in conservative — that is, True Liberal — principles. This was no rejection of the fundamental tenets of individual liberty, free market capitalism, and traditional values. If anything, this election was a reaffirmation of all of those things. That Obama had to straight up lie and invent a fake identity in order to win is evidence that Americans are fundamentally conservative.
Combine the effect of the total domination of the Federal government by the Democratic Party — and one that is rather different from the moderate triangulating Democrats of the Clinton era, and one that is nothing like the older Democrats of JFK, Scoop Jackson, and even LBJ — with the unbelievable expectations of the Obama Administration by all of his core supporters, and I have to conclude that the Obama Machine will overstep its bounds. They cannot help themselves. They will, at last, reveal themselves.
I have faith that we True Liberals will rediscover our way. I have faith that the Republican Party will return to its conservative roots. I have faith that many of us will rediscover that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. I have faith that we will purge our ranks of those more interested in pork than principle. I have faith that we will replace the corrupt leaders of our party with True Liberals, rock-solid conservatives, who can explain and defend the principles of smaller, less intrusive government, support for free market capitalism, and a robust military as the best defense in a dangerous world. I have faith that those elected officials who are squishy wanna-be socialists will be eased out, pushed out, or forced out.
And once we have rediscovered our soul, and have recommitted ourselves to the Long War of standing up for our eternal values, I have faith that the American people will recognize that Republicans are the party of freedom, progress, and prosperity.
On Election Night, I read this entry by Lisa Schiffren over at The Corner, and have found it to be comforting:
So from me you get Rudyard Kipling, explaining here why, even if we lose today, even if our worst fears of impending socialism and apocalyptic doom descend upon the land of the free, the eternal realities of life will bring us back to basics.
Then she gave us the poem, Gods of the Copybook Headings, which I excerpt here:
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
My friends, faith endures.
Because our principles are not built on hopes and dreams, but on twenty thousand years of human history. Our beliefs are not figments of a philosopher’s sophistication, but the collected wisdom of a hundred generations of men and women who made mistake after mistake after mistake, and passed down that hard-won knowledge of how to survive and thrive in the real world we live in, instead of the dreamworld of the philosophers.
We have work ahead of us, to be sure. I am rededicating myself to settle in for the Long War against the foolishness that is communitarianism by whatever name it is called. But let us keep our heads up, our prayers in our hearts, and our ammunition dry. We have work to do. We have fights to win. And we will go into the Long War not relying on some feathery Hope, but standing on the rock of Faith. Because Faith endures.
Living as I do in the heart of BAMAELL (Boston-Atlanta Metro Axis Elite Limousine Liberalism), this election season has not been easy. Everywhere there are portents of doom — whether it is the spectacle of a Republican administration acting like the Chavez and nationalizing banks (while they get excoriated from the Left for being laissez-faire fatcat capitalists — how does that work exactly?), or the poll numbers showing that McCain might not even carry Arizona. If you are a conservative (or True Liberal) and want to be downhearted, there is no shortage of reasons in 2008.
Iran appears to be on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons; we are losing the war in Afghanistan; our economy looks to be headed to a deep recession if not an outright depression; our culture continues to be shallow and sub-moronic; and our media has pretty much given up the pretense of being journalists, preferring the more glamorous “columnist” lifestyle instead.
But you know what? I feel fine.
More I think about it, more I believe in people like gamecock and others. I can’t find the post now, but there was a post here on Redstate that basically posited that the election is over — we just haven’t counted the votes. Either the majority of the American people are socialists, or they are not. If they are, then nothing that McCain or Republicans can do in 2008 will matter; if they are not, then nothing that Obama or Democrats can do in 2008 will matter (well, except for voter fraud via ACORN….).
And more and more, I am coming to believe that the American people are not completely lost to the siren call of socialism. Joe the Plumber, and how he’s resonating, is one hint of it. The shifting trends to put wind behind McCain’s back is another hint. But fundamentally, I just can’t believe that the American people have completely lost the pioneer spirit that defined who they are.
At the end of the day, I believe this election will come down to a question that each American will ask himself or herself on Nov. 4th:
When I think of government, are the first words that pop in my head “Leave me alone!” or “Help me!”
That, my friends, will decide this election. Because there is no doubt, whether you oppose or support Obama, that he is for the government helping you, whether you want the help or not. McCain hasn’t distinguished himself here, but it seems to me that he’s at least nominally for the government leaving you alone as much as possible.
I’ve had recent conversations with a number of friends, colleagues, business associates, ranging from Ivy League elites to hardworking Middle Americans (literally — as in Dayton, Ohio). And most of the non-political folks (aka, most Americans) are still unsure.
At the same time, when they’re driving and they see a police car, their instinct is to hope not to be noticed (even if they’re not breaking any laws). When they have to go to the DMV to renew a driver’s license, they’re not going with songs of joy in their hearts that the government is helping them and taking care of them. Going on welfare still has negative connotations for most Americans.
Even in the midst of what is supposedly economic Armageddon (according to the media and politicians), I think most Americans still instinctively understand that we do not need “fundamental change” in our system. That’s a step too far. Tweaks and reform, maybe, but abandon free market capitalism? I don’t sense this upsurge of support for that idea.
Particularly on the Left, I find it endlessly fascinating to see people who are diehard Obama-supporting socialists make statements and do things that completely contradict the socialist ethos.
The Obama supporter who thinks it’s ridiculous that New York City has a law prohibiting smoking in bars. The BDS-sufferer who thinks more regulation is the answer to our problems, who nonetheless believes that prostitution should be legal because “what happens between consenting adults is none of the government’s business”. The eco-warrior leftist who wants to regulate banks, car companies, and force unionization, but nonetheless wants to make marijuana legal.
The common thread is freedom. Individual liberty. Of being able to tell government officials and bureaucrats, “Leave me the @#()*#$ alone!” That was, after all, how this nation got started when a bunch of guys decided to tell a far-away government to leave them the hell alone.
If that instinct towards freedom is alive and well even amongst the diehard Left, then I have the audacity to hope that the majority of Americans in the middle will not surrender freedom for security. As sweet as Obama’s words may be, I believe that they will find themselves on Nov. 4th with a sneaky, sinking feeling that if they pull the lever for The One, they are indeed surrendering just a little more of their freedom, compromising just a little more of what makes them Americans, and that they will close their eyes, gulp, and choose to tell the well-meaning bureaucrats, “Leave me alone!”
It’s the end of the world as we know it, according to the punditocracy, and I feel fine.
You know… some of you here on Redstate might call me naive. Others may perceive a certain… sarcasm in this post… but such sarcasm is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Really. I swear to Obama.
But watching the last two nights of Charlie Gibson’s interview of Gov. Palin, I simply can’t wait for his next act!
At last! At last, we the American people are getting the press we deserve. How long have normal, average Americans been waiting for the Fourth Estate to do their job for us. We have only seen these politicians through 30-second ads, through staged events, and inappropriately fawning Us-style celebrity “journalism”.
But courageous Charlie Gibson, oh ye man of truth, unafraid to speak Truth to Power, and to really question these candidates who want to be President and Vice President… you have stepped forth as the defender of the American public interest in knowing really what these people think.
Consider these questions Charlie asked Gov. Palin. (And watch the video to take good measure of his tough, skeptical, borderline hostile tone.)
GIBSON: Didn’t George Bush come to Washington eight years ago talking about reforming Washington in the same kind of language? Ran as something of a maverick actually; came to Washington. Eight years, hasn’t changed the ethos in Washington particularly. Why are you any different?
GIBSON: You mentioned in the three principles that you’ll change spending. You also talked about taxes. Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people’s taxes? It’s been pretty clear what he intends. He’s talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year — cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country. Why do you keep saying he’s going to raise people’s taxes?
GIBSON: But it’s now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a T-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time…
THAT’S HOW IT’S DONE, CHARLIE MY BOY! THAT’S HOW YOU QUESTION A CANDIDATE!
I know Charlie must be as tough and as fair if he’s to maintain even the illusion of a shred of credibility as a “journalist”. And he’s paid to talk on TV and tell us the news, so he must be at the very top of the profession of journalism. Young men and women in journalism school are looking up to heroes like Charlie Gibson.
GIBSON: Can you tell us what the cost to the American taxpayer has been of your daily trips to Washington DC from Delaware?
GIBSON: It’s pretty clearly documented that you said of your running mate during the debate that he wasn’t ready to be President, that the Presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” What has changed since then that makes you think he’s ready?
GIBSON: Your running mate, Barack Obama, has made it clear that he disdains lobbyists, making a special point of how big pharmaceuticals and insurance company lobbyists have made it impossible for average American families to afford healthcare. Yet, your son, Hunter Biden is a major lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies. In fact, one of his clients received a $100,000 earmark from Senator Obama. Can you explain the contradictions to the American people?
And oh, the questions our brave Charlie will be asking Obama:
GIBSON: You attended a church whose pastor was preaching some very disturbing, some might say racist, messages of hate. You quoted him in your memoirs as a major spiritual influence on you. You left that church under pressure earlier this year, after saying you could no more deny him than you could deny your white grandmother who had racist thoughts. How do you explain your actions?
GIBSON: You’ve called William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist, just someone who lives on your street. Yet, the records are pretty clear that you two served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge together, and your started your political career in his living room, announcing your run for the Illinois State Senate. Why did you not make clear the depth and breadth of your connection to Mr. Ayers? Do the American people know everything there is to know about your relationship with Mr. Ayers?
GIBSON: You have been criticizing Gov. Palin for her initial support of the Bridge to Nowhere. But you voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, and have never repudiated or regretted that vote. You were for it before you were for it. Are you still for it? Can you explain your vote on that earmark legislation?
GIBSON: You have been campaigning as someone who will work with Republicans and Democrats both. Yet your voting record establishes you as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Can you give us three concrete instances where you reached across the aisle to work with Republicans against your party’s leadership, whether in the Illinois State Senate or in the U.S. Senate?
GIBSON: You pledged to take public financing for your campaign. Then you broke that promise when you raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Can you explain that apparent flip-flop, Senator?
GIBSON: You are on record as saying the surge will be a failure. Then recently, on O’Reilly, you admitted that the surge was a success beyond your expectations. But you say you would have opposed it anyhow. Can you explain exactly where you are on the surge, Senator? Knowing what you know now, would you have voted for the surge?
And more just like that. About his constant evocation of race, after having said he wants to transcend all that. About his opposition to the Iraq War, then his support of staying in Iraq, then his demand to withdraw right now. Knowing the vigilance of Charlie Gibson, he will delve into how it is that his wife, Michelle, got a promotion that doubled her salary when he was elected to the Senate in 2005. Charlie will surely bring up Mazen Asbahi, Obama’s Muslim-Outreach Advisor, with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Maybe nothing inappropriate was done there — but as a principled journalist, Charlie will make SURE that the truth comes out.
Right?
Right? I mean, Charlie will do that, right?
Don’t leave me hanging here folks. Who’s with me? Who else can’t wait to see all of the “tough but fair” questions that Charlie Gibson will be throwing down at the other candidates in order to ensure that the American public knows who these people are, what they believe, and to have them explain contradictions?
I mean… he must! He simply must! Or… or… these kittens are gonna get it!
-TS
PS: Any sarcasm you might detect is purely a figment of your perception.
PPS: Which is not to say your perception is wrong, merely that it’s YOURS.
(I write this after midnight due to RL issues, but I did want to get this down.)
Seven years ago today, on September 11, 2001, I became an American.
There was no swearing-in ceremony. There was no recitation of the pledge of allegiance to my new country. No judge in black robes. All of those things had already happened five years earlier.
But mentally, emotionally, I was not an American on September 10, 2001.
Rather, I was a member of that peculiar group of people who are legally American citizens but mentally something else. Citizen of the world, maybe. A hyphenated American where the prefix matters infinitely more than what comes after the hyphen. An oppressed minority just trying to get what’s mine in a racist, unfair, corrupt society ruled by protestant white men. A member in good standing of the people of color solidarity movement. But an American? Eh, technically yes.
Even with the passage of a few days from the Convention to ‘cool down’, I find that my admiration for Gov. Palin remains steadfast. If anything, it has increased as she now takes to the campaign trail. One of the reasons is something I have not seen discussed much, if at all, in the media or in the blogosphere. But it is something I feel strongly about and felt worth discussing.
Due to the extraordinary attacks by the left on Gov. Palin’s family, all parties – including the Obama campaign – have simply declared family members (except those who serve as proxies by campaigning, as Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama have done) out of bounds. Generally, I concur.
However, there is an exception.
As I learned more about the Palins, while everyone was focused on Sarah Palin, I found myself fascinated with Todd Palin. He seems like a normal guy, a man’s man if you will, who’s into his own thing and is not threatened by his powerful wife in any way. But as I learned more, this leaped out at me:
He is a facilities operator for giant BP on the North Slope oil fields. He took a leave from a management job when his wife was elected governor in 2006 but returned after about seven months in a nonmanagement job, according to BP spokesman Steve Reinhard.
This is from a source normally not-friendly to Republicans. Lest we conclude that “management job” might mean something like CFO, or VP of Operations, let’s be clear: Todd Palin was employed as an “oil production operator” by BP. This job posting at rigzone.com gives us an idea of what this “management job” is:
2 yrs. minimum oil and gas production operation experience for 7/7 and 14/14 work schedule rotation.
Baker is NOW HIRING B Operators with the ability to assist in operating GOM production facilities with little supervision, including but not limited to, safety, environmental, regulatory compliances, testing, repairs and maintenance of facilities, wells, production equipment, safety equipment, devices, measuring equipment, rotating equipment, and shipping/receiving of materials. Becoming a member of the Baker Energy team may assist candidates with great opportunities for the future. Become a member of a winning team.
Maybe Todd Palin’s job was more of a “manager” of these operators, requiring more experience, which would explain why he was making $100K to $120K a year. But let’s be clear – this guy was more of a “line manager” who lead a team in the field, not a corporate management guy.
Nonetheless, when his wife became the governor, Todd Palin took a leave for seven months. Then he went back as a straight up laborer – just one of the working grunts. Not even a team manager.
The Obamas
In contrast, Michelle Obama was appointed as the VP of Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Medical School in 2005. Prior to this, she was the Executive Director for Community Affairs. Prior to that, she was the Associate Dean of Student Services for the University of Chicago.
Let us recall what else happened in 2005. That’s right – one Barack Obama was sworn in as the junior Senator from Illinois.
Ms. Obama’s promotion came two months after her husband became a senator, but campaign aides said that she’d been offered the promotion and turned it down before that.
In 2006, Mr. Obama sought, but didn’t get, a $1 million earmark for the medical center. Aides and university officials said at the time that Michelle Obama had nothing to do with the request, and that her husband was merely trying to help a constituent like many others.
Mr. Obama, however, later said that he should have asked another senator to request the earmark for his wife’s workplace. “This is something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system,” he said.
But leaving aside the apparent conflict of interest and all sort of other fun things going on there, let us focus on Michelle’s interesting career path. Here’s a timeline based on this announcement in 1996 by the University of Chicago naming her as the Assistant Dean of Student Services:
• 1988 – Graduate from Harvard Law School.
• 1989 – 1991: Associate, Sidley & Austin
• 1991 – 1992: Assistant to the Mayor (of Chicago, presumably, who was one Richard M. Daley)
• 1992 – 1993: Assistant Commissioner in the city of Chicago’s department of planning and development
• 1993 – 1996: Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago (this info comes from this release, which says she was the Founding Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago)
• 1996 – 2002: Assistant Dean of Student Services, University of Chicago
• 2002 – 2005: Executive Director for Community Affairs, University of Chicago Hospitals
• 2005 – Present: Vice President for Community and External Affairs, University of Chicago Hospitals. (According to this Wikipedia article, she still holds this position, part-time.)
Now, what else happened during this timeline?
It appears that in 1996, one Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate.
In 2002, Barack Obama was reelected to the Illinois State Senate, an election which changed control of the State legislature from Republicans to Democrats. As so happens, he became the Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, which oversees… you guessed it… hospitals, among other things.
And of course, in 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Is it not curious that the dates of Michelle Obama’s jobs coincide so perfectly with electoral success by her husband?
The Bidens
What of the Biden family?
The fact that one son, Hunter Biden, is a lobbyist is by now a well-known fact. That he may have lobbied his own father is interesting, although the campaign obviously denies it. That he lobbied one Senator Barack Obama, who went to bat for his clients to the tune of $3.4m, is interesting:
Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.
And now, thanks to the gents at Powerline, we learn that Beau Biden also has a rather interesting career path:
As I understand the facts, Biden, a graduate of Syracuse University law school, began his DOJ career in 1995 in the Office of Policy Development. Two years later, he obtained the far more prestigious and high profile position of Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the Philadelphia office. This is a career position, so politics should not come into play in the selection process.
AUSAs litigate cases on behalf of the U.S. government. Thus, I’m told, the credentials normally required of an AUSA for an office like Philadelphia include a few years of successful litigation experience, typically in a state or city DA’s office, or in a litigating division of DOJ, such as the Criminal Division or Civil Division. There, one gains trial experience plus experience dealing with motions. As far as I can tell, Biden lacked litigation experience. The DOJ’s Office of Policy Development is not a litigating division.
The suspicion arises, therefore, that Beau Biden got his AUSA job with the help of his father. It’s only a suspicion, but one that perhaps merits scrutiny from a few of the MSM correspondents currently on assignment in Alaska.
And by the way, Beau Biden failed the Delaware Bar Exam three times, before finally passing.
Now, I happen to know personally two Assistant United States Attorneys. Both men, while liberal Democrats, are upstanding people, and simply outstanding lawyers. Both were litigators at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, probably the best law firm in the country. One went to Harvard Law School, the other to NYU School of Law. Both are editors of their respective Law Reviews, are brilliant, and incredibly hardworking. They both passed the Bar on the first try. When they were applying for the AUSA job, lacking U.S. Senator fathers, they were put through the ringer and then some. They told me that the job was one of the toughest to get in the law. Incredibly qualified men and women were getting dinged because the others were even more qualified.
And somehow, Beau Biden, three-time Bar Exam loser, graduate of Syracuse University Law (which may be a fine school, but it’s not even in the same league as the other AUSA’s), got the coveted AUSA job. And his father just happens to be the Chairman of the Senate Justice Committee.
Fair Game
While families may be off-limits for campaigns, this particular example is, I believe extremely relevant.
None of us would blame Joe Biden, if we were honest, about wanting to help his sons succeed. All of us have had a friend or a family member help us out with references, job referrals, with help. We would do the same for them. When someone we know gains a position of power, it is perfectly human and perfectly natural to take advantage of the good fortune – as long as we were not doing anything illegal or unethical, one might even take such a thing for granted.
But not Todd Palin. Not the Palin family.
They were so upright that Todd quit what was for all intents and purposes a low-level management job because his wife would have influence over oil companies. They did not want to be influenced even by that small a connection. So he’s back at work, in a nonmanagement role, pumping oil like any of the other hardhats.
The contrast is stark.
When the country thinks over the next couple of months about who we would want in the Oval Office, about who should represent us in the seat of power, we might want to think about the incredible restraint of the Palins. Yes, I know McCain is at the top of the ticket, and I haven’t researched his family — I ran out of time, as it were. But I am somewhat… confident that you won’t be finding odd coincidences of electoral success coupled with career success for people around John McCain.
Perhaps what the Obama and the Biden families did is not illegal nor unethical. But what they did not do was to turn down jobs that may cause a conflict of interest in the person who loved them the most in the world. Maybe such opportunism is the way of the real world.
That simply makes the sacrifice of the Palins that much more amazing, that much more laudable.
They are surely an imperfect family, and imperfect human beings. I am certain to be disappointed in the weeks to come in one way or another.
But on this point, on the issue of ethics, of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety… the difference is stark.
I know we’re all wrapped up in the incredible story of Gov. Sarah Palin, and the incredible meta-story of the self-destruction of the legacy media. But I wanted to take a moment to note just how effective Rudy Giuliani has been as a surrogate for the McCain/Palin ticket. He is absolutely our most effective attack dog.
Every campaign needs one, and I now believe that Rudy needs to be front-and-center much more often.
For example, on Hannity & Colmes last night, Rudy absolutely destroyed Alan Colmes’ various attacks on Palin and defenses of Obama simply with his laughter. I don’t know what it is about Rudy’s laughter that is at once scornful yet genuinely mirthful.
His words, of course, were also right on the money.
HANNITY: And I — has he ever made a million-dollar decision? Has he ever made a life or death decision?
GIULIANI: When he makes decisions, it takes a long time.
HANNITY: Yes.
GIULIANI: On Georgia, he first set up a moral equivalency between Russia and Georgia. He then said let’s give it to the United Nations until they figured out they have — Russia has veto power. It took him three days to get to the right decision.
HANNITY: Yes.
GIULIANI: So I think that there’s a difference here in judgment, a difference in experience, and I think that he got away with no experience. And all of the sudden we have a woman on the ticket, and her whole record is being attacked in a way that his never was.
And on Joe Biden:
GIULIANI: The reality is that we have our ticket in the right order.
HANNITY: That’s right.
GIULIANI: The person with experience — most experience, is number one.
HANNITY: Right.
GIULIANI: The younger person, who’s the next generation, is number two. They have a person with no experience, number one, and they have a person number two that has got a lot of experience, but on foreign policy.
Tell me how often has Joe Biden been right? He opposed Ronald Reagan in the struggles Ronald Reagan had against the Soviet Union.
HANNITY: Soviet Union.
GIULIANI: He was hanging on to (INAUDIBLE) when everybody else had rejected it.
HANNITY: Against Kuwait.
GIULIANI: He voted against the Persian Gulf War and he voted against the surge.
HANNITY: Right.
GIULIANI: The surge which has proven to be successful. So Joe has a record, but he’s got a record of being consistently wrong on these major issues.
Then there is this exchange with Tom Brokaw:
[Obama] was rejected by Ohio. He was rejected by Florida. He was rejected by New York. He was rejected by all the big states. Rejected. Even after he was the leading candidate.
Rudy was not right to be our candidate for a number of reasons. But when he’s advocating for you, there is none more effective.
Here’s to appreciating Rudy. I for one would be very comfortable with Rudy having a significant role in the McCain Administration. He would make a fantastic Attorney General.
As a Fredhead who was not at all comfortable with McCain, I have completely changed my tune with today’s announcement that Sarah Palin will be his running mate. There are other posts everywhere that are talking about whether this is game-changing or not. Well, it is for me. I have just donated to both the RNC and to the McCain campaign (what I could at the moment), and have volunteered for both.
So just a show of hand (as it were). Anyone else get involved because of this pick? Just post a response with a Yes, if you have, and what you’ve done (donation, volunteer, bought merchandise, etc.)
On Friday, Aug. 22nd, reading David Brooks gushing article about Mr. Biden in the NY Time, made me shudder, as does this above item. As an Iranian activist, as well as a **registered American Democrat** who faces the cute media sentimentality over the flaws of some politicians, I realize that I live in a country where it’s not the content of the message/person/action but the form that counts; as long as it’s all wrapped in a nice package, well then, that’s all that matters.
I’m amazed that Mr. Brooks did not look into Mr. Biden’s on-going flirtations with the Mullahs over the years. **His willingness to go to attend fundraisers (for his senatorial re-election) at the houses of rather questionable millionaire Iranians in Belair, who are founders of the Islamic Faith (Iman) Foundation and known to have deep ties with the Mullahs and whose specific task is to promote the archaic-minded, patriarchal despots reigning over Iran, is disconcerting to say the least.** Also Mr. Brooks has clearly failed to look into the other Iranians who Mr. Biden has supported vs. the one who he has refused to connect with, lest they take him to task for his connections to the Qom-on-Belair Iranians. Not one Iranian that I know of, who is against dialoguing with the Mullahs has ever been bestowed an audience with this foreign policy maven of a Senator. Mr. Biden’s “discrete” meetings with various envoys of the Mullacracy, in European cities, in the presence of disreputable Mullah-supporting members of the European Parliament is also well-known among us Iranians who do have very decent proposals which Mr. Biden has recalcitrantly refused to consider.
Another unfortunate situation is Mr. Biden’s connection to one Houshang Amir-Ahamdi who though a professor at Rutgers University is the founder of a rather objectionable organization called the American Iranian Council (AIC) – which has some of the shadiest characters who were involved in the oil-for-food scandal on the various boards. Amir-Ahmadi is an admitted supporter of the regime in Tehran and goes back and forth to Iran to meet with the Supreme Leader of the Khomeinist regime, Khamenei himself, as well as the holocaust-denying, Israel-threatening Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi in fact nominated himself for president of Iran in 2005. I can go on about Mr. Amir-Ahmadi but in the interest of time, I will suffice it to these few comments. **Mr. Biden has been flown to various events and lodged at the most expensive hotels by Mr. Amir-Ahamdi and his group in order to promote the feckless and rather destructive notion of normalization of relations with a regime that continues to execute innocent Iranians of all ages, sexes, creeds, religions and backgrounds.** Mr. Biden is the last person who I as an Democrat would nominate as a vice president, all partisan sentimentality aside.
These claims, if true, could be… ah… “of interest” to voters. Particularly those who might think that Joe Biden is an expert on foreign policy.
Perhaps these claims are completely bogus, in which case I’d like to know that.
Perhaps there are very good explanations for these things, in which case I’d like to know that.
Perhaps they’re absolutely true, and Joe Biden has been taking political contributions from Iranian front groups, and associating with questionable Iranian operatives, then pushing normalization policies with the #1 supporter of terrorism in the world, who has been actively waging a war-by-proxy against our troops in Iraq.
However it is, I really would like to know whether these charges are true, false, or in some shade of grey. Does anyone know the facts?
Tell me if you’ve had this happen to you recently. You’re conversing/debating with a known leftist friend or colleague, and the topic of Obama comes up. They spend several hours praising The One, how he’s so brilliant, so articulate, so charming, so… everything this country needs.
Then they say, “But I don’t think he’s going to be elected” with despair in their voice.
Naturally, you ask, “Why would you say that?”
The answer: Because the country is too racist to vote a black man for President.
I have now heard this from at least three separate Democrats, which leads me to believe that they are aware how weak Obama is as a candidate, and are preemptively making excuses.
What’s strange about this is that the Republicans have never once made Obama’s race an issue — if anything, they have said how great it is that a mere forty years after the end of de jure segregation, a major party could nominate a black man for President. Not a single ad, group, or spokesperson for McCain or the actual Republican party has made an issue of Obama’s race. When wackjobs do appear, at least those of us on Redstate have spent time smacking them down.
I oppose Obama because of his ideas, his principles, his character, his values, and his actions. As a “person of color”, I happen to think it’s absolutely wonderful that Obama may become President.
So why does the Left insist that Americans are ignorant rednecks who can’t look past the color of a man’s skin? Could it be that after decades of identity politics, they simply can’t conceive that anyone would think differently than on the basis of group identity?
As much as the people of pallor on the Left might want to make this election a referendum on the state of race relations, and voting for Obama their personal expiation of whatever white guilt they are carrying around, I believe that the American people understand we are facing an enemy that doesn’t care whether we are black, white, yellow, purple or pink — merely that we are Americans. I believe that the nation understands that we face challenges that do not distinguish between the races, or genders, or any other “group identity” apart from the one that binds us all together: American.
And the American people are electing a person, an individual man, to lead us for the next four years. Obama will lose the election if Americans focus on the individual — the content of his character. He may win if Americans, like the Left, focus not on the individual flawed candidate that is Barack Obama, but only on the color of his skin.
Obama may be the first affirmative action President in the history of the country. I believe that the American people, sensible and pragmatic, will understand that there are some jobs you don’t give people on that basis.
Judging by the preemptive excuses, so does the Left.
But I’ll take it, as it gives me time to cogitate publicly and ask for your thoughts as well.
Moe Lane
Erick Erickson
Jeff Emanuel
Steve Maley
Caleb Howe
Dan Spencer
