Woot Woot!

Looks like Archbishop Charles Chaput agreed to speak at a luncheon and got some tough questions, which he handled quite well. The Rocky Mountain News has the whole story.

Relativism, how I loathe thee (especially on a syllabus)

Per scholarly sources, nationalism determines whether you view Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair as inspirations or villains. I’ve been on hiatus with my textbooks, and, like my dear colleague, I’ve returned ticked off - and not just because I’ve been told Bill Clinton should be a source for national pride. It is ridiculous to compare Saddam and Slick Willy to Britain’s Prime Minister (whom I admire, despite his misguided social democracy on the domestic front). Even isolated academics should realize it is irrational to treat corrupt dictators, sexual harassers, and eloquent allies with equal ambivalence.

Here’s another choice quote from my course readings on politics in the Middle East:

“The rise of fundamentalism is the greatest danger facing the contemporary world, whether it is Muslims in Tehran, Jews in the occupied territories, Siks in Amritsar, or Christians in America, such as Roman Catholics who firebomb abortion clinics or Protestants who picketed the funeral of the gay murder victim, Matthew Shepherd.”

Obviously, we should fear those pesky sign brandishers as much as their fundamentalist counterparts who choose car bombs as their primary medium of protest. Any phrase from this quote could inspire lengthy screeds on innumberable topics, but I think it speaks for itself. Scratch the motion for professor fellowships; I’m petitioning Regnery toa textbook line, stat.

PS – Yes, as a geek who aspires to combat revisionism regarding communism and other menaces through the written word, I do have a conflict of interest. = )

War for Oil

Now that someone has poked the hornets nest in which the neo-isolationists had been sequestered, I would like to add some iconoclastic observations about a troubled region, rich in oil, but plagued by human rights abuse and host to terrorist groups. No, not Iraq -- that would be trite.

Instead I will now address Sudan, while it is more chic than trite.

In particular, somebody should tell the realists, or anyone who thinks that foreign oil is important to our national interest, that Sudan has lots of oil.

Nobody really knows how much, though, due to to the nation's steadied practice of misgoverning itself since the British left Sudan free to do so. It seems that the Sudanese practice of blowing stuff up impeded prospecting and oil production. So while proven reserves have mushroomed: from almost nothing in the last 5 years to over 500M barrels, estimates of total oil exceed 10 billion barrels.

What makes this interesting, at least for those of us who understand economic principles, is that the oil in Sudan matters a lot more than the oil in Iraq. Yes, even though Iraq has more oil. The reason is because what matters is oil production. Saddam, had he not been impeded by our sanctions, would have happily pumped plenty of oil. The Sudanese can't get their act together. So intervention in Sudan would surely increase world oil supplies shortly, whereas there was no reasonable hope that intervention Iraq would increase world oil supplies.

And someone should also send all the decent folks who think that an intervention in Sudan would be purely about stopping a horrific genocide: it might actually result in an imperial oil adventure, too.

Not that they'd mind: the Christian and animist victims of the Arab-controlled government would surely welcome the respite.

Toss in the fact that the oil is located in the Christian south, and that if the oil wealth is stolen by the Arab Muslim north, we might be facing a Saudi style terrorism problem in the future, and the case for intervention purely on national security grounds seems strong.

It is further bolstered by soft power matters -- the US might do well to claim, credibly in Sudan, since the crimes against humanity are so egregious are the main focus of attention, that it is indeed willing to intervene for humanitarian causes, even in Africa. Our failure to act in Rwanda, contrasted with our intervention in Iraq -- which is apparently now justified as a humanitarian intervention -- cause many to hear our freedom rhetoric with a cynical ear. Sudan might offer the cure.

Now on to the exciting flipside:

Liberals ought to be cautious about urging an intervention in Sudan. They are likely to feel more pain from the future interventions such a precedent would allow than relief from the good works done in Sudan. A next likely target, after all, would be Syria -- a brutal dictatorship run by a religious minority clique, with a habit of occupying and looting its southwesterly neighbor.

A target more distant, and orders of magnitude more troubling to our liberal friends, of course, would be Cuba, which has been heating up the pressure on dissidents. Platt Amendment #2, anyone?

Greetings

Hello. My name is Marc, and as the newest member of the team, please allow me to introduce myself. I am a libertarian iconoclast with some elitist tendencies, though they are mild: although he is lacking in formal higher education, I do respect my co-religionist William Safire much more than his fellow speech-writer and my fellow Hoya, Pat Buchanan.

I am a PhD student in Economics at UC Berkeley. For now, I encourage you to read my previous blog postings on Down With Bush, and in future, I encourage you to read my publications.

Note that I will be posting infrequently until later in the month.

Let me also put in a plug for a rebranding:

abu bin
reagan
Ours is an ideology of peace.

Don't be economic girlie men!

The GOP shows signs of capitulating on President Bush's SS plan already. Sigh. Is it too much to long for principled (wo)men who don't give a damn about re-election and above all care about their future of their country?

RE: Tiffany Tavern

Count me in one of those nights, no preference on my end. Since I didn't get to see a few of you over CPAC, I would love to catch up...

RE: Everything

(1) Yes, Georgetown is a reasonably moderate place compared to many campuses (I readily admit that -- why do you think I am there?). Please, I am begging everyone to drop that subject. Seriously. I am not disputing anything anyone has said about this fine institution of learning. I know its not like Cal Berkeley or any number of other schools. But as Stephen said, its certainly to the left of much of America. Again, I was only pointing out that I have done academic work beyond the island of happiness that is Grove City College.

(2) My "I'm Back" post should definitely be considered sarcastic. Anyone who even glances at Child of Reagan can figure out we are not aboutborders, Progressivism, Wilsonian foreign policy, or even neoconservatism. My talk of rage and anger and other nice things was clearly not a serious statement. Some of us have been writing together now for about three months and know each others politics pretty well. Progressive? Come on -- the first time some of us met each other was in a *bluegrass* bar in Old Town Alexandria, where a very *traditional* beverage from the *oldest* maker of this certain beverage in America was imbibed, and various ills of modern life were railed against. In short, it just so happened that upon my return to CoR there recently had been debates in this space about a few topics I jokingly referenced. Almost every writer for CoR has been to my apartment where we've shared food, drink, laughs, stories, etc. -- I know their politics and they know mine. I assumed we could all handle a little sarcasm...

(3) Neoconservatism is difficult to define, but like pornography, I think we know it when we see it. Stephen's comment about foreign policy taking precedence is more or less correct, I think. But I also hold that neoconservatives often are a little more comfortable with big government than the so-called paleos. Example: instead of abolishing the Dept. of Education like many old-line conservatives would love to do, neoconservatives might push for the Dept. to introduce measures aimed at achieving conservative ends -- like values education. Many neoconservatives claim there have not been any "neocons" since the 1960s or 1970s, when a number of ex-liberals (often ex-radicals) were "mugged by reality" and converted to the right side. Frankly, I don't buy it -- I think neoconservatism is an actual body of thought, a specific ideology. Any political ideology is difficult to describe, and inevitably someone you label under that ideology will object and say, "Yes, but I don't believe..."

(4) Did I mention I don't think Anz or Stephen are progressives?

Tiffany Tavern

I'm gonna be on break next week, and while I don't have much free time, is anyone up for a CoR MeetUp at Tiffany Tavern in Old Town? Tuesday and Wednesday evenings are the only times that work for me.

The Duhks!

I'm a frequent visitor to CMT.com and if you like bluegrass, folk, or country I recommend you become one too. Why? Because you can listen to a lot CDs for free, without commercial there. If you're into streaming radio or videos they've got that too.

The latest unknown goldmine I've stumbled onto is The Duhks, and you can listen to their latest album for free here.

While they are probably not conservatives, I'll forgive 'em. The CD is a little rough around its edges ("Dover, Delaware" reminds me too much of something you'd find at a bad coffee bar) its got some real gems in it.

I'm a big fan of "Four Blue Walls" more for the instrumentals than the lyrics. If you check out the CD, be sure to also listen to "Dance Hall Girls/Bozeemon Boogie." To the extent that it conjures up images of early immigrantion along the lines of Simon & Garfunkel's "American Tune".

Like most bands that haven't made it big, and probably won't, the lyrics aren't nearly as good as the instruments. There is some fine pickin' and strummin' here. I also appreciate that they change the lead singers frequently, which adds a new dimension to the CD.

Whew...

Some heated exchange there in the last couple posts. To chip in my own two cents, I agree that Georgetown is a pretty conservative campus as they go for all the reasons Emmet pointed out. (Not conservative in relation to the entirety of America, but conservative in relation to other college campuses.)

As to WFB, Dinesh D'Souza and others I would make the point that while you may have some all-star conservatives trickle out, the majority of students come out of America's institutes of higher education more liberal than they went in. It's nice to have these two gentlemen, but I'd rather have an electorate that thinks unborn babies deserve to live, lower taxes are a good thing, and that smaller government is better government.

Finally, I would throw in my own two cents on the definition of neo-conservatism. I think it extends farther to the mainstream than militarism. Perhaps it can best be described as a belief in putting greater weight on foreign than domestic policy while holding that foreign policy should concentrate on spreading democracy, by force if necessary but not as a first resort. (The former is derived from Bill Kristol's statement he would rather vote for John Kerry than Pat Buchanan, even though domestically he agrees w/ Buchanan more, Max Boot's declaration that the right should give up the fight on moral issues.)

For future reference

I try to avoid bringing up Georgetown directly on this blog, just to avoid any unpleasantness...my aim is to comment on politics or, if college campuses do come up, talk about them (and my experience) broadly. I want to draw a distinct line between what I do at Georgetown and what I write on this blog, especially since I have 35-40 students every semester who may google my name. I'm not trying to hide my political identity, but rather make sure my politics and my work at Georgetown are entangled as little as possible. I love Georgetown and have had absolutely no problems politically there. But I don't want to debate Georgetown, the politics on campus, or anything else regarding the university in this space. In my post below, I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that my academic experience has not been limited to Grove City College.

Again, from this point on I would really like to avoid writing about Georgetown or my academic work. The internet is a strange place, where once something is written there's no telling where it will end up. I am probably being paranoid, I know -- but the world of academia is a tough place for conservatives, and I do not want to give anyone any ammunition. This was a major concern of mine when I left the blog and would prefer to keep what I do during the day a non-issue here at Child of Reagan.

Define Your Terms, Matt

Sometimes it can be funny to call fellow conservatives names like "progressive". In this case, it's grossly misleading, and potentially hazardous: this blog has a pretty wide audience, and the casual reader might take your sarcasm for "Truth." That's dangerous.

Next time, take a look as to what is being "propogated." [sic] Neither Stephen nor I posted anything that could be categorized as "internationalism" or "neoconservatism." A cursory reading, so long as it isn't an "angry" one, pretty clearly indicates that what is being advocated is NOT the sort of foolhardy militarism that one associates with neoconservatism, but rather a voluntary concern for freedom beyond our borders. I would talk about this more, but it's already been said. Scroll down.

Second, Anastazia was pretty clearly not supporting “borders.” In fact, she said so: “I'm not advocating that we throw out immigration laws, but it should be easier for immigrants to enter the country to work legally.” She seemed to be calling for a rational immigration policy that enhances our economic prosperity by allowing workers and employers to enter into free, mutually-beneficial exchanges; this is sensible, and certainly does not deserve the label “progressive.”


In subsequent posts, the advertised rage has thankfully yet to manifest itself. But if this sort of knee-jerk, inaccurate name-calling is to characterize your future contributions to CoR, perhaps we should all “tremble” indeed.

PS: While you're remembering how to define "neoconservative" and "progressive", perhaps you should look up "liberal campus" too. Although it can understandably seem that way after four years at Grove City, Georgetown is *not* liberal in an absolute sense. If I can descend out of the foreign-policy sphere to comment briefly on my beloved alma mater: any campus on which pro-choice groups are forbidden from receiving funding or participating in student activities fairs, and on which condoms cannot be sold, does not qualify as "liberal." The student body is fairly conservative: ideas from the right regularly prevail at on-campus debates, and groups such as the Knights of Columbus are active and popular. Is it a Christian enclave in Pennsylvania? No. But compared especially to its peers, Georgetown isn't nearly so leftward-leaning as you seem to think.

RE: Why I'm Right

My boy Stephen --

I think you misunderstood my post -- I do NOT think having a single conservative professor at a university can turn around its entire political culture. But, you have to start somewhere. And you seem to make quite a strong case for my point, actually: you mention what one conservative professor did for Buckley...who then went on to do other, reasonably important things. Another example is Jeffrey Hart at Dartmouth, whose mentoring of students and sponsorship of Dartmouth Review has given us Dinesh D'Souza, Peter Robinson, and others. My point was not that having a single conservative faculty member can turn a school around (though in time, and in conjunction with other conservative faculty members, perhaps this would be possible), but that even one outpost of sanity can do wonders for students. And I think Kendall and Hart are two powerful examples of this. I think they have done more for the conservative movement, if indirectly, than the speeches of Ann Coulter or others. Its not a matter, as you say, of saving all the students -- its a matter of acknowledging the profound impact one conservative professor can have in the long run.

In short, I think you harped on my point that one conservative professor can make a difference, when that was really a minor point in my post. I KNOW, and I think its obvious, that one conservative in a department would be limited. Common sense tells us he or she would be limited. My point, broadly, was that we should work to get more conservative faculty members if we really want to change our campuses. You didn't really address this, or my critique of the strategies of current groups "fighting the battles" on college campuses.

And just because I went to Grove City College doesn't mean I'm unqualified to speak about the modern campus. You neglected to mention I'm currently on a liberal campus, where as a graduate student, the concentration/effects of liberalism are even greater. For instance, among the ENTIRE incoming class of Ph.D. students, I am one of (I think) maybe two conservatives. Conservatives just don't go to graduate school and get Ph.D.'s as much as liberals do. And that's one reason why the academy is in the shape it is (though I admit its a self-perpetuating cycle that may cause this...i.e., conservatives know academia is liberal, and thus avoid it...).

How much does Ann Coulter get a speech? $20,000 or something like that? (She may cut certain groups some slack). That's enough for a graduate student to live off of for an entire year. Maybe we should put that money towards getting conservatives through grad school and not getting the CR's name in a student newspaper.

And I'm not aware of any YAF funds for people like me -- that is, fellowship type things for graduate students.

In your next post, address my substantive point about the strategies of some of these groups. I might be wrong. But it seems that by doing nothing more than causing a commotion on campus, we only fool around with the symptoms of campus liberalism without treating the disease. And remember, my post was in a very specific context -- the book that said through activism we can take back our campuses...which is a joke.

RE: Matt Sitman is a snob ;-)

As newly self-appointed ombudsman for this blog, I feel it is my duty to point out that Mr. Sitman failed to disclose a clear conflict of interest in his bleg, namely that he wants to be a conservative professor and would probably love to have a fatty fellowship from YAF.

That said I also disagree with him. It is my belief that for conservative professors to have an impact you need more than one at a campus. In fact, you must have a campus akin to Grove City College, the overwhelmingly conservative, religious college he went to.

Why do I say this?

Given my own experience at William and Mary, a secular public school like most other universities, a single conservative professor doesn't amount to much. You may learn neoclassical economics from the one untenured libertarian in the Econ department, but it will soon be forgotten in the onslaught of liberalism from every other professor.

That students still slide to the left over the course of their studies here is evidenced by a student survey conducted from 2000-2004.

Nor do I think this is different from other campuses. In God and Man at Yale, WFB observes that he was impacted by Willmoore Kendall, one of the few conservative professors. While Buckley was preserved from liberalism thanks to this prof, most of his classmates were not. Again, we have the case of one professor not being able to save them all.

So if one professor can't save them all is the solution to hire more conservatives? Not unless you can hire enough to constitute a majority of the faculty and create a Grove City environment. Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, I would instead say the best thing to do is bring in guest speakers and to agitate for an Academic Bill of Rights which would castrate the left.

More on this rough bleg later...

Am I a Snob or Not? Wait, Don't Answer That...

I have a distrust of, or perhaps a natural skepticism towards, stuff like this. The link is to a thin volume written by a College Republican in Texas titled The Conservative Revolution: How to Win the Battle for College Campuses. To win back campuses, it encourages conservative students to hold affirmative action bake sales, "Straight Pride" day marches, and more. You can read a review of the book here.

First, I think this book has been written before (if, perhaps, with a slightly different focus) in various permutations, starting just over fifty years ago with the master himself -- WFB's God and Man at Yale. Since then, we've had Dinesh D'Souza, Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz, and others all write about the left's dominance of the academy. Here's a newsflash to writers everywhere: WE KNOW CAMPUSES ARE LIBERAL. Stop writing books about this. Really.

But here's my main gripe: campuses will never, ever change unless conservatives get Ph.D.'s and get teaching jobs at colleges and universities. Period. You can demonstrate, dance in the streets, make fun of the left, point out hypocrisy, start a campus newspaper, etc etc -- and these things may bolster conservative students' spirits and be useful to some extant -- but when the protest ends or Ann Coulter finishes her speaking engagement and heads back to New York, tenured (read: untouchable) left-wing faculty will still be teaching, making hiring decisions, and running our campuses. There will be no "conservative revolution" on campuses through activism.

Why don't conservatives understand this? Or do we, and simply do nothing about it? If we were really serious about taking back the academy, groups like YAF would fold up, join with other activist groups, and pour their millions into getting conservatives through graduate school and setting up a network of like-minded Ph.D.'s to facilitate and coordinate hiring on campuses. And I am being serious about this -- I honestly believe ONE conservative faculty member does more than 1000 Ann Coulter speeches to effect legitimate change on campuses. One permanent voice of reason, one protector of conservative students, one person to advise conservative groups -- this does much much more than paying Coulter (or fill in the blank with your favorite celebrity conservative) thousands and thousands of dollars for an in-and-out lecture that gets the College Republicans' name in the student newspaper.

Granted, this doesn't have the mass appeal of affirmative action bake sales (i.e., grad school is alot less "fun" than making fun of liberals), but I think it is the only way to really change things on our campuses. In my opinion, conservatism has stopped being a movement (in many ways) and has instead become an industry. If we changed things, what would a group like YAF do? What would all their well paid employees and ex-Reaganite leaders do if deprived of an enemy? Let's face it: these groups have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, where they can rake in millions in fundraising efforts predicated on pointing out the silliness of leftist faculty members.

The only group really trying to change things by attacking the root of the problem is ISI -- their fellowship programs have helped many, many conservative graduate students afford their education. I will also admit IHS doles out some decent money for right-thinking students/graduate students (but not in a structured, full fledged fellowship program like ISI).

What am I getting at? I think it can be best said this way: the "conservative revolution," if one will ever occur on campues, will happen deep in the libraries of our top universities, with conservatives studying away trying to make it through graduate school. The revolution will not be in the campus paper or in the street through demonstrations. We - and the groups who can fund us - need to realize this.

Freedom is on the march...

Besides Moldova which I'll leave to Emmet and Az to comment on, the pro-Syria government of Lebanon has resigned. It had been suggested that the government had played a role in the assasination of a dissident earlier this month.

I know there were good conservative reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, but spreading freedom should not be counted among them. As is seen by the case of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now (hopefully) Syria we can affect regime change without needing to invade.

Orange Revolution Spreading South

Could someone please remind me why I'm not in Moldovia? Dick Morris sets out an optimistic agenda for the hopeful democratic turnover as elections near in this former commie country.

Lovin' those Liberals

A Must Read

John Lukacs is my favorite historian. (There are number of excellent runner-ups -- Forrest McDonald and Christopher Dawson come to mind.) But Lukacs' thesis that we are witnessing the end of an entire age -- The Modern Age AD) -- strikes me as largely correct and incredibly insightful. In addition to doing some of the best work ever done on Hitler and World War II, Lukacs has done some amazing writing on the philosophy of history, historical consciousness, and more. I am currently halfway through this latest work, Democracy and Populism (released first week of February), and am completely enthralled. He has challenged much of my thinking about nearly everything, from the two world wars of the twentieth century, to the Cold War, to what exactly communism meant. In the future I intend on using some of his points to stir debate in this space. But for now I merely wanted to tell everyone to drop whatever you are doing and go buy this book and read it.

Michael Novak Bothers Me

I have noted my displeasure with Michael Novak in this space before -- notably his comment that voting was one of the chief functions God intended for man. But I have too much reading to do tonight (thankfully, it is Michael Oakeshott and Eric Voegelin) to give a broad critique of his thinking.

Instead, I want to draw your attention to this quote taken from a recent Corner post of Novak's regarding Slovakia: "So many Slovaks feel that they have won their freedom twice in the past twenty years. And have they done so! They lead all Europe in their advanced, neoconservative economic policies--personal old age pensions, a flat tax, personal medical accounts, a kind of Steve Forbes/G. W. Bush platform already written into law."

Neoconservative economic policies? Has this man lost his mind? Barry Goldwater was pushing privatization of social security FORTY YEARS AGO when he ran for president against LBJ. As for flat taxes, I think its been a general article of faith for libertarians/free market conservatives of all stripes (read: people who are not necessarily neocons) that the progressive income tax is deeply flawed (I would call it nothing more than a tool for leftist social engineers). In short, I just do not see anything distinctly neoconservative about any of the policies Novak cites.

What I find really amusing is that if one uses the term "neoconservative" to describe a kind of Wilsonian foreign policy (describe it however you want, that's just the phrase I tend to use) they squawk about "neoconservative" not really meaning anything and how its unfair to use a broad label like that (David Frum and Jonah Goldberg especially get irritated when labeled neocons). But when the term can be used to their benefit, it seems like Novak at least is very willing to describe pro-freedom economic policies (a bit more popular than an interventionist foreign policy) as neoconservative.

Either the term means something or it doesn't (though imperfect, I believe the term DOES mean something -- see Irvin Kristol's Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea). But whatever you think about the word "neoconservative," I am certain the economic policies Novak describes aren't distinctly neoconservative.

I'm Angry (and back)

Since I left Child of Reagan, I have seen it become a bastion ofborders, internationalist, Progressive thinking! I cannot idly sit back while such things are propogated.

Thus, I will be rejoining the blog, though on a more limited basis. Expect fewer posts from yours truly, but know I will keep an eye on things and defend Truth on (probably) a weekly basis. Don't worry if you do not hear from me for awhile -- it simply means my rage is building and I will unleash a flury of posts sometime in the future.

So, I'm back. Again, I won't post as much as I would like to, but all the neocons out there should take note, and tremble.

Thanks to Melinda for having me back.

The Theme Song of the Glorious (and Victorious) Orange Revolution

Razom Nas Bahato

Together we are many
We cannot be defeated.

Falsifications. No!
Machinations. No!
'Little Understandings.' No!
No to lies!
Yuschenkko, Yuschenko!
is our President.
Yes! Yes! Yes!

We aren't beasts of burden.
We aren't goats.
We are of Ukraine
sons and daughters
It's now or never
enough of waiting
together we are man
together we cannot be defeated

Rallying to Mel?

Zogby reports "that 39% of Dems will watch the Oscars, and only 13% of GOPers".

The ratings market hath no fury like an evangelical panned. Instead of throwing an Oscar party, tell your pals to exchange their finery for kilts and host a Braveheart screening. They can take their medals, but they can never take our remote controls.

Novak on Communism

No, not Michael Novak. Bob Novak. For any anti-Communist his latest oeuvre is a timely reminder that the war for freedom is not yet finished. It is also provides comfort that our new Sec State may be willing to take the issue on.

Writes Novak, "The Sandinistas, the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party... are on the verge of accomplishing what U.S. officials call a ''golpe technico'' (technical coup), stripping President Enrique Bolanos of power."

President Bush while "preaching global democracy... until now has ignored this deepening regional crisis." But thanks to the efforts of "a few low-level officials" who have been "ringing the warning bell" there may be changes in store.

The administrations disapproval of the recent, forced ascension of a Sandinista to head the army is being conveyed by "Rose Likins, a tough foreign service officer" with a prity to "speak bluntly" and "express outrage at the use of extra-parliamentary maneuvers to return to effective power the Sandinista former president, Daniel Ortega."

While Bush is still largely ignoring the Marxist insurgency, Sec of State "Rice brings a voice to the Cabinet that appreciates the infection spreading throughout America's backyard."

RE: CPAC's Immigration Debate

I'll toast to that bleg Anastasia. My views exactly.

To throw in my two cents, I was pretty disappointed by Steve Moore's performance on that panel. I had looked to him to be the white knight in the debate as his fellow pro-immigration panelist was pretty clearly pushing the Bush line. In contrast he defended it on philosophical terms.

My basic criticism is that he took the right views but wasn't strong enough in supporting them. For example, rather than hammer on his point that being for increased immigration doesn't mean being for illegal immigration (Mrs. Schlafly's assertion) he only said it a couple of times, half-heartedly. He also let up on the job creation benefits of increased immigration after making the point the first time. He could also have pushed the security aspect you mentioned.

The anti-immigration side of the debate won on rhetoric, but lost on reason.

Wow.

As the long time reader of this blog and BraunlichBlog before it knows, I've only recently come around to the skeptical view of our mission in the Middle East. Consequently my defence of the position is admittedly weak. Yet in a nice bit of providence, Cliff May at the Corner pointed me towards this article by Martin Kramer.

It is a great questioning of the neoconservative position regarding the Middle East, and reflects many of my concerns. One of my favorite lines:

"In the promotion of democracy, however, it is important to bear two things in mind. The first is to distinguish between the places where pressing for it might do good from those places where it is more likely to do harm. ... The second is to remember that these are times of war, not times of peace, and that means we may continue to find ourselves in bed with dictators and despots for some time to come. "

Frankly, Iraq was a mistake to the extent that we probably won't get a real democracy there - which was one of the goals. Among other things there is not a strong support for pluralism there. (Note: I do realize that the final election tally will require the Shiites to compromise... but that doesn't mean there will be true pluralism.) Also no democratic traditions or protection for civilians. It would fall under "the places where pressing for [democracy]... is more likely to harm."

That said I do think there is a lot of potential for the exercise of soft power to bring democracy to the Middle East. There is simmering resentment in Iran among democratic activists at the mullahs. In Lebanon there seems to be a movement against the autocratic Syrian occupiers. Both of these could become democracies, but only if the desire comes from within their borders. The US can only stand on the sideline and cheer.

Good Novak Post

at the Corner on Pope JP II. It's pasted below:

"WHAT IS THE POPE TRYING TO TEACH? WHAT CAN A SICK POPE DO?
Here's what I've been thinking on the topic: A Pope is not actually like the Commandant of the Marine Corps, there is really nothing he has to do except be. The church normally runs itself, its departments hum on. Only a few decisions await him, really. The church could go months without appointing new replacements for bishops. What a Pope does is be another Christ. What does Christ have to do, except be? And the comparative advantage of Christianity is that it roots itself in suffering, the suffering of age that each of us will undergo, of cancers and disabilitities and mental illness in the family, the inescapables of every life. Secular humanism ignores these. Professor Rawls thinks Christian emphasis on suffering is life-denying. Not so. I think that's why so many people are touched by JPII. They know all about suffering, but nobody ever says how ennobling and transformative it can be. That it's quite all right to be ill and suffering. That it's a great and valuable gift. That it means a lot. That it's at the heart of things. In a way, the Pope is teaching more powerfully about Christianity and its comparative advantage than he ever has. The most important work of his life. "

CPAC's Immigration Debate

Yes, it's practically a whole week after the fact, but the exchange revealed some intriguing tensions in the conservative movement, as well as some troubling assertions made by both the panel and questions from the audience.

One panelist, a fan of the Bush plan, argued for the need to avoid creating a "permanent underclass" by fixing the main problem by changing their "illegality", making them viable actors in the economy. Mainly, the argument was that:

A) We need the workers - illegal immigrants account for five percent of our economy, and should be documented and allowed to work, given that Americans are increasingly skilled by generation, and our supply of unskilled labor is dwindling.

B) We will suffer lower standards of living if illegal workers are deported; we should grant them legal status for our sakes, not theirs.

The pro-Bush Plan panelists did not list what I believe is their strongest point: if we allow guest workers who are documented and productive members of the market, we can focus on the unlawful visitors that really matter: terrorists. Granted, some terrorists have gained legal entry, but I'd prefer that the INS focus its meager resources, capabilities, and competence where it matters the most: saving American lives. I'm not advocating that we throw out immigration laws, but it should be easier for immigrants to enter the country to work legally so we can chase anti-American militants. This applies with conditions, listed at the end of the post.

Phyllis Schlafly, as much as I adore her in general, countered with some arguments that sounded by turns vindictive or mercantilist. The alarm in her delivery echoed a pre-globalization world, and ran against basic microeconomics.

She called illegal workers robbers and "wage thieves", despite the fact that another panelist cited that we have the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world, even with ten million new immigrants. Workers spend, produce, and create more jobs with their productivity. There are good reasons to fault Bush's plan, but protecting American jobs is not one of them. Protectionism ultimately leads to stagnation and lower standards of living for all Americans. We already have a party that subscribes to this rhetoric, and they lost the last two elections.

In closing, we should welcome industrious immigrants, be honest about the skills we are looking for, and not allow immigrants to partake of the welfare state. The panelists agreed that we should stress assimilation. Another added that this does not include support for a national ID card, as it limits liberty and promotes a image of legitimacy, rather than suspicion, when in the wallet of a potential terrorist.

Some, however, still viewed the immigrant as the real enemy. One questioner asked: "How can we enact the death penalty for illegal immigration? We should shoot them on sight. It'd be a great deterrent." It is this sort of xenophobic grandstanding that gives red meat to Democrats who see a bigot behind every bumper with a Bush sticker.

Immigration is not my specialty, but from my superficial exposure to the issue, it seems that Republicans should promote competition, inclusion in the labor force, and economic globalization. In allowing free markets to flourish in America, they would be protecting the long-run interests of American workers and the global poor.

Putin continued

Now that I've gotten around to posting, I'm very glad to see that my concerns about Russian neo-imperialism have already been ably raised here on CoR.

Anastazia presents some chilling thoughts--that the new assertiveness of Putin's Russia, sustained by irrational feelings of "betrayal", may spread beyond what Kremlin hawks condescendingly call the "near abroad" into regions of significant international strategic concern. Indeed, current reports indicate that Putin is taking advantage of anti-American sentiment in NATO ally Turkey to increase its grip on the "Broader Middle East." When combined with his efforts in China, South Asia, and even Latin America, Putin's Middle East diplomacy seems to be part of a disturbing trend--one which may culminate in the formation of yet another anti-American bloc in Eurasia.

However, at least among American conservatives, there still exists some widespread sympathy for Russia stemming from the Beslan massacre in the North Caucasus, in the misguided belief that Russia and the United States are natural allies in the War on Terror. Although this sympathy should have disappeared in the wake of Putin's subsequent anti-democratic crackdown, it persists. Nick Gvosdev of The National Interest is one of the best advocates for continued American ties to Putin, and recently argued that concerns over the trend in domestic Russian politics are somewhat exaggerated.

I hope he's right--as much as we might all fondly reminisce about the Cold War, I don't think anyone wants to re-fight it. All the same, it greatly pleases me that, as Stephen points out, Bush made Putin "squirm" with some good ol' straight talking. As is hopefully clear from my introductory post, I am no raving neo-con either--but the Bratislava summit represented the perfect opportunity for Bush to use that fairly tall bully pulpit still available to presidents of the United States. I am glad he used it.

Departures: A Personal Apology for an Activist Foreign Policy

cheap homeowners insurance . Here you can buy cheap amoxicillin and get it tomorrow. . hotel in kiev

As rewarding and fun as it no doubt is to wage the battle for liberty at home (and it is—the delightful Melinda has already inspired me with tales of front-line work against statist evil in Western Pennsylvania and elsewhere; and I admire the evident passion that all of you express here in your writings), one must be careful in so doing not to neglect the battle for liberty abroad.

Some of you in this wonderfully conservative milieu might question my emphasis on freedom in distant lands. Since I remember my former life as a quasi-isolationist libertarian before fully giving myself over to the foreign-policy “establishment” by matriculating at Georgetown, I sympathize with this skeptical instinct, and recall John Quincy Adams' famous declaration that

"America...has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings," which concludes with the oft-quoted “she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

How, then, can a conservative or libertarian reasonably presume to contradict this clear statement, one so imbued with the founding ideals of our Union?

First, I submit that, in the modern context (a world vastly diminished in size by advances in transportation, communications, and trade—and a Union vastly increased in size by nearly two centuries of expansion in every field of its endeavors), the leaders of these United States must fulfill their sworn duty to protect our nation from threats to its security and its economic prosperity--threats of a like that Adams could not have imagined, and threats which require a military and diplomatic response that cannot be confined to the narrow geographic boundaries of the 49th Parallel, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Rio Grande. Although space here does not permit a fuller treatment of this notion, it suffices to say that democratic countries that share our ideals are far less likely to endanger our security than their authoritarian counterparts—and are far more likely to promote our national interests as well.

Second, and perhaps more controversially, I argue that there is a moral obligation incumbent upon all of us, as individuals and as Americans, to share the benefits of our material prosperity and historical experience with the peoples of those nations striving to secure their own free futures. Since I went to secular humanist Georgetown and not to Grove City, I am not accustomed to phrasing this imperative in religious terms, but its meaning should be clear to all of us: those who enjoy the blessings of Providence (in this case, a free(-ish) market and a free(-ish) political system) have a responsibility to share them with those who do not. I wish to make clear that I do not advocate the “Americanization” of the globe; although the Left has profaned and corrupted the term, the essence of “cultural diversity” is indeed worth treasuring. Yet, as a historian; as a traveler; and as someone who has from time to time glanced at a newspaper, I can state with absolute certainty that not all cultures are equally valuable, equally prosperous, equally admirable, or equally just. In our world, good exists, and evil exists. We as Americans—primarily as individuals, but also as a nation in Congress assembled—must do what is right, and seek to defeat the latter.

The latter is precisely what the namesake of this forum did in his most lasting accomplishment: the victory against the Evil Empire. I am choosing very carefully here to say "Evil Empire" rather than "Communism," because I fear that with the disappearance of Soviet ideology as a political force, most Americans have neglected the real threat that the imperialist ambitions of the current Russian regime pose to the freedoms of peoples all across Eurasia—and, perhaps, all across the world.

Though I recognize that there are countless threats to freedom in the contemporary world, I focus on Europe and Eurasia out of personal, professional, and academic interest. Most recently and most particularly, I have devoted myself to Ukraine. Recently, I was fortunate to parlay a business trip to Belgium for an unrelated matter into the chance of a lifetime—to witness, and then contribute to, a great and surprising triumph of democracy. In the future, I look forward to presenting you with my analysis of the Orange Revolution (as well as its Rose counterpart), while in more appropriate fora I will be even more pleased to detail my personal experiences “on the ground” in Kyiv. I welcome any comments you have on this essay, and as part of that “resident foreign-policy specialist” role to which Melinda has appointed me, I am happy to discuss any questions or issues of an IR nature that you might wish to raise.

Bully for Bush

Bush had a press conference with Vladimir Putin yesterday, where he made some pointed remarks about Putin's crackdown on democracy. The Independent has the story, but this paragraph made me smile,

"An unsmiling, visibly irritated Mr Putin squirmed as he listened to Mr Bush tell a press conference he had been told that Washington had 'concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling" the 'universal principles' of democracy. 'Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that,' Mr Bush said. 'Yet democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition.'"

I'm no neoconservative, but I do think we should promote democracy - just not by force. Here's a great example of Bush pressing the case without needing to send in the Marines.

Disclaimer

The lawyers have advised us that the time is nigh to issue a disclaimer -- the editorial opinions expressed here may or may not represent those of the entire blogging community @ CoR. As the founding blogger, I would like to explicity say that those only bearing my signature are mine and should be attributed to me. For instance, I find some of the opinions expressed here appaling, but will defend the right to express them to my death.

Not everyone who writes on CoR believes that Rick Santorum is a hollow man (as I do) who would sell his mother in exchange for the presidency. Not everyone who writes for CoR condemns AIDS as "God's curse." How absurd. I for one have many gay friends and while I don't fancy their choice I still love them. CoR is essentially a medium for Reagan's intellectual children and grandchildren to hammer out their political philosophy and to learn how to express that philosophy eloquently. We invite you the reader to gently correct us, overpower us with your insight and to send us amusing links.

As always, we welcome anyone who has a genuine desire to engage in these sorts of debates to join us by e-mailing moi.

Yours,
Melinda Haring

The Great Game, 2.0?

From today's Early Bird:

"Iraqi state television aired a video" Wednesday "showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer, who said he trained Iraqi terrorists to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops," AP reports. "Later, Al Iraqiya aired another round of interviews with men it said were Sudanese and Egyptians who also trained in Syria to carry out attacks in Iraq."

This revelation confirms suspicions that have become conventional amongst some conservative wonks. I hope Putin knows who he's doing business with. According to a briefing at Heritage earlier this week on today's meeting, Putin has many interests in the Middle East that conflict with our goals, and wants a greater role in the region. He also sees the Ukrianian elections as a personal betrayal by President Bush. Indeed, some members of the Moscow panel that joined us via satellite believed the Ukrainian elections had been influenced by American groups preparing for the event as much as three years in advance. This Russian threat to sell arms to Syria is not only a move to reassert relevance, but also a reaction to a perceived personal slight between leaders. In this case, the maxim of the personal and the political may have deadly consequences for all who question the right of Syrians to abet terror and strive for hegemony in the region.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

From the Phantom Blogger

Matthew Sitman cannot stay away! Although he's officially no longer with us, he recently wrote the following:

Apropos of nothing, I thought I would send along this link with the latest National Journal rankings regarding the conservative or liberal leanings of our wonderful representatives in Congress.

In the Senate, Santorum has the second highest lifetime conservative composite score of any GOP Senator (Brownback is first). This is higher than Frist, George Allen, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Hagel...you get the point. This guy is NOT a RINO. I hope you Santorum haters out there will consider his voting record when deciding whether to take him out or not in '06 (imagine, considering someone's voting record!).

Ok, just wanted to point out some of you may be opposing (or know someone who is opposing) the second most conservative senator (lifetime rating) in his re-election bid.

*Note: Sitman only represents Sitman and certainly not Haring. I think most CoR readers know how I feel about Tricky Ricky.

Super George

RE: Conservatives and Libertarians

Randy Barnett was at the practical electioneering side of this debate yesterday. His basic premise: we live in a two party system, and deserting a party to form a new one only hurts those in the new party. In other words, by creating the Libertarian party, libertarians lessened their impact in both the GOP and Democratic party. Because the Libertarian party will never get elected, this was equivalent to removing oneself from the election/policy process altogether.

Lord, Hear our prayer

The Pope has suffered a relapse...

"Love is the DNA of the children of God."
-- Pope John Paul II

Conservatives & Libertarians: Can this marriage be saved?

Can the marriage between conservatives & libertarians be saved? This was the question of the very enjoyable evening at America's Future Foundation debate in Washington, DC last night.

Keep in mind, I do offer these observations as a libertarian, which may slightly bias the way I see the strength of the arguments. That being said, Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine easily crushed his opponent's weak arguments. Gillespie argued that while Republicans and Libertarians may ally on innumerable fiscal issues, once the Grand Old Party takes power they spend like a drunken Ted Kennedy. Incidentally, has anyone ever seen a sober Kennedy? Doubtful. He further reminded the audience that even giants like Ronald Reagan have tempted libertarians to stay in bed, to use their analogy, with the rhetoric of tax cuts and less spending. However, the actions of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II do not accord to with rhetoric. In other words, they're promiscuous lovers, promising us the world and sleeping with anyone who will enhance their power.

In frustration to the tepid arguments offered by the affirmative "let's stay together for the children," I asked, "Bush has really no excuse not to enact pro-liberty legislation. He doesn't have to worry about re-election. What do we have to look forward to in the second term? More tariffs, more terrible education bills, more bloated Medicare, more Arlen Specters? At what point do we split the sheets?"

W. James Atlee III of The American Conservative tried to wash his hands of W., saying that true conservatism isn't what Bush espouses. (Only I know what true conservatism is, Atlee implied through body language and remarks, more than once.) He's essentially alluding to Fred Barnes helpful distinction between big government conservatives and small government conservatives.

But big government conservatives have an incentive problem and/or severe myopia. President Bush no longer needs to sleep with Democrats on education, Medicare, trade issues, etc. in order to secure his re-election. If he fundamentally knows that something is bad policy - policy that has marked his first term - why continue to advance wasteful spending? Secondly, if we continue to increase federal spending and permit the government to further regulate and prescribe how life should be ordered, then when the Democrats eventually assume power, they'll have an even larger arsenal of spending options with which to harass us. But as Gillespie so eloquently stated, it's not about party; it's about the state and the incontrovertible fact that the state grows over time and reversing expansionist policies is almost impossible.

Declaration of Revocation
by John Cleese

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further
elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters.

You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise."

You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary." Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "uhh", "like", and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

Look up "interspersed."

There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary, then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier).

You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents --- Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.

While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football." There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies).

We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2005.

You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day."

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.


All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call 'French fries' are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.

Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling "beer" is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in the Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or "gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon -- get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.