I am learning all the time.
The tombstone will be my diploma.
Eartha Kitt
Jonah Goldberg/Washington Post,
"Top Five Cliches That Liberals Use To Avoid Real
Arguments": Some Reflections
The original op-ed should be read in its entirety, but in short, Goldberg discusses (in my terms):
- racial/ethnic/socioeconomic diversity is axiomatically worthy
- conflict is the result of insufficient diplomacy
- the Constitution must be interpreted in contemporary context
- criticisms of social programs are based on a core system of social Darwinism
- the justice system must be assessed on how it protects the falsely accused
Most conservatives and libertarians accept scientific theories (including evolution). In fact, we argue that traditional institutions (such as marriage) have evolved through thousands of years of societal evolution. A Burkean conservatism would minimize discontinuities of policies from the status quo. As for certain high-profile populist conservatives espousing critiques of relevant scientific theories, I expect that has more to do with political posturing.
My personal opinion on affirmative action is that in a country where we already see people of different races and cultures represented at high levels of business, entertainment and government, whatever "training wheels" which at one time served a useful purpose are no longer necessary. We need to be at a place where we may more attention to the quality of one's words and actions than his or her individual characteristics. During my professional career I've used references by multiple DBA's of color and Indian colleagues. Three of my best friends over the past 30 years are a Baptist, a Jew and a Hindu, all of whom have known I'm Catholic. My only academic co-author is a Taiwanese-American woman.
I think that liberals have unrealistic expectations regarding the possibilities of diplomacy. Other parties negotiate in bad faith: negotiations may result in a face-saving agreement with no real compromises for political purposes, serve as little more than a delay tactic and a finger-pointing pretext for subsequent actions (including the use of force), or yield an agreement signed by a party with no real intention of honoring terms (e.g., Saddam Hussein), holding the other party responsible for breaking the agreement.
For example, in 2007 then Senator Barack Obama participated in immigration reform talks, but in subsequent Senate floor action, Obama supported amendments striking down key Democratic concessions in the compromise, killing the measure. Another example of bad faith negotiations was the 111th Congress where Democrats, with huge majorities in both chambers, did not feel the need to engage in compromise and routinely voted down GOP amendments. The only tool that the GOP had to slow the juggernaut of partisan bill making was the filibuster tool. The Democrats then and to this day audaciously blame the Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" for using the filibuster (a classic example of bad faith negotiations, in this case by the Democrats). In fact, the Senate Democrats during the Bush Administration used the filibuster in an unconventional way to obstruct floor votes on President Bush's judicial nominees (i.e., the Constitution does not specify super-majority confirmation of judicial nominees), a minority's abuse of privilege. In a similar way, the Wisconsin state senate Democrats last year similarly used unconventional tactics in an attempt to sideline long-overdue public employee collective bargaining reform.
In fact, we conservatives found it was all but impossible to get this Senate and President to accept even a modest year-over-year budget cut in a period we were spending 40 cents on the dollar which we don't have, but our own children will have to pay back one day (in addition to their own government spending).
As for the Constitution, we see the "living Constitution" as a convenient concept where ideological judges do an end run around the legislative branch. The Constitution already includes a mechanism for change--the amendment process.
Already progressives are seeking to strike back at the Citizens United decision (where the constitutional rights of corporations and unions were given equal protection to free speech granted to other groups or privately-owned companies). Why should we be surprised by the schemes of progressives trying to revoke the economic and other liberties of their fellow Americans? Apparently progressives are afraid of the free market of ideas where Barack Obama can't outspend his GOP opposition 4-to-1... Isn't intuitively obvious that his right to "buy an election" is "more equal"? This proposed amendment is dead on arrival.
There are other topics that Goldberg doesn't bring up in his article. He is correct, of course, that liberals bring up "Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet" ideas that no one seriously disputes--what I call "Political Trivial Pursuit". Obviously as a libertarian, I am concerned about the possibility of unjust charges, prosecutions and convictions based on problematic circumstantial (vs. direct or substantive) evidence or mistaken identity, later rightly reversed by DNA or other grounds. On the other hand, the idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater--of allowing others whom have violated the unalienable rights of others and may do so again--to stay or go free is hardly in the best interests of public safety.
Obama's speeches are full of vacuous "insights" and truisms. As Goldberg implies, Obama evades real conversations and debates about serious issues like REAL budget cuts or dealing with nearly $50T in unfunded entitlement liabilities. Like any empty suit, he defers the hard decisions to subsequent administrations, nibbles at baked-in budget increases, posturing net increases as "spending cuts", delegates other cuts to unaccountable commissions, and claims unrealistic cost cuts, like 30% cuts in physician payments via CMS.
There are other things that Goldberg doesn't really discuss, like the condescending rhetoric and the ad hominem and petitio principii arguments. I introduce some alternative insights in the next section.
Guillemette's Observations of Liberal/Progressive Politics
Part I
- If a progressive has no enemy, he'll invent one
- The progressive always assumes no unintended consequences to his policies.
- The failure of any progressive policy is never attributable to its concept or design.
- Any progressive policy is axiomatically virtuous: it is, by definition, fair, balanced, and necessary. Hence, it follows that any opposition is arbitrary.
- Any spending cut is translatable to a social program's worthiest recipients or public servants.
- A progressive politician is just another bourgeois king expanding the reach of his empire under the veneer of democracy and high-sounding rhetoric.
White House Correspondents Dinner Edition
Obama: “Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartegana.”
[It's those time zones; she didn't realize that it was 3AM at the White House...]
Obama: “What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? A pitbull is delicious.”
[Romney: "On Canadian vacations, hockey moms get to ride inside the car."]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Rolling Stone, "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby Standing in the Shadow"
