Andrew Klavan writes a column and notes reasons for optimism in our winter of discontent:
1. Fracking. As I’ve said before, Obama and the EPA will ultimately be splatter on the windshield of this progress. There’s energy in them thar hills and eventually we’re going to get at it, whether these luddite environmental knuckleheads like it or not. That means wealth, energy independence, jobs, power and a reboot of Dallas. Obama may be choosing decline, but the rest of the country may well choose prosperity and growth in spite of him.
2. Federalism. Around the country, conservative governors are taking action that could galvanize reform nationwide. Right-to-work laws, state budget cuts, reduced property taxes and creative approaches to education. As prosperity follows these practices — and abandons California and Illinois and other lagging states — they will gain credence with the general population and make political stars of the governors who supported them.
3. Reality is on our side. When I call Obama a reactionary, what I mean is that he adheres to a grievance-based socialist ideology he learned in college from professors who were probably old even then. As these academics die and go to hell for all eternity, up-and-comers may begin to notice that the poor suffer under left-wing programs and rise under the free market, that education improves under conservative guidance and gets worse under liberals, and that big business actually gets more entrenched and powerful under the left while the right helps the little guy thrive. That, after all, will be the off-beat, radical position, and academics love to be off-beat and radical as long as everyone around them is being off-beat and radical too. A new generation is already on the rise that understands entitlements are unsustainable and that freedom works. It won’t be long at all before we begin to hear their voices in the mainstream. I hope.
Go here to read the insightful rest. The last item rings true to me. When “the reality based community” are pinning their hopes on unicorn dust and trillion dollar coins you know that their movement has a reservation for an ecologically friendly section of the ashheap of history.
SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!
In addition to point 1 on fracking for oil and gas above, we should also mine coal and build new nuclear power plants based on a thorium-232 / uranium-233 fuel cycle. With the gas and oil from fracking, and with energy from new nukes applied to the Fischer-Tropsch process of producing liquid fuels out of coal, we won’t need Saudi oil and can tell the Islamists to go drown in their mineral slime.
I really wonder how long it will take mindless American traitors to realize they made the worst mistake in our entire history with the reelection of a socialist president. I expect Gloom to really deepen in the new year.
I am sincerely sorry.
I am positively pessimistic. I can’t talk about it with my sons. They will suffer.
It all has been shoved too far down the rat-hole. The Obama gang set out to destroy the evil, unjust private sector and they killed the “goose that lays the golden eggs.”
The vile imbeciles re-elected the destroyer ensuring it cannot be resurrected.
The gutless GOP House majority now is smaller.
And, worse, GOP House leadership are equally as bad borrowers/spenders, e.g., their surrender in the so-called “fiscal cliff” deal.
I see no way they can do any better on needed spending cuts and the debt ceiling curtailments in two months.
God gave us memory so we could have jobs in 2014.
“And, worse, GOP House leadership are equally as bad borrowers/spenders, e.g., their surrender in the so-called “fiscal cliff” deal.”
I have read that many times on conservative sites T. Shaw and it is rubbish. If the Republicans had done nothing severe tax increases would have been imposed on the American public. Now the Republicans have made permanent the Bush tax cuts for 98% of American taxpayers and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax be having it finally pegged to inflation. In regard to spending cuts I am disappointed but not surprised. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, the best the Republicans can do is to attempt to block new spending and I believe they will do that. So there will be no new trillion dollar “stimulus” and Obama can forget about Congress allocating large funds for new programs. In the wake of an unnerving defeat in November I actually believe the Republicans haven’t done too bad so far.
My kids are 21, 21 and 17. I refuse to be pessimistic about the future of their country, and as long as I live I will fight to brighten that future. Woe is me pessimism is a luxury I cannot afford.
I like Donald’s sense of hope even if I do not always feel it: “My kids are 21, 21 and 17. I refuse to be pessimistic about the future of their country, and as long as I live I will fight to brighten that future. Woe is me pessimism is a luxury I cannot afford.”
All we have to do to prosper is repent. As I have repeatedly commented before, we have access to enough natural resources – uranium, thorium, coal, gas, etc. – for a more than adequate supply of low cost energy essential to a thriving technological society. God has been exceedingly generous towards us. That isn’t the problem. Rather, man’s attitude and rebellion are the problem. I see signs of that reversing as Life Site News now says 83% of Americans want restrictions for abortion, and as the militant homosexual movement starts revealing itself for what it really is. So maybe Donald’s sense of hope is justified. Besides, isn’t despair a sin?
I can believe that pessimist me just wrote all that.
“If the Republicans had done nothing severe tax increases would have been imposed on the American public. Now the Republicans have made permanent the Bush tax cuts for 98% of American taxpayers and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax be having it finally pegged to inflation. In regard to spending cuts I am disappointed but not surprised.”
Thing is Obama will take credit for both and the GOP will be more than happy to allow that. Before you say, “Who cares who gets the credit for it?” consider that the propaganda war is an essential battleground of this war and for too long the GOP has conceded this to the Dems, to the detriment of the conservative movement and the country. And there are defintely ways the republicans can do a better job in the propaganda department. For one, they can go on offense and demonstrate the alarming disparity in what we spend on entitlement programs and what is actually received by the recipient. We can propose that we can maintain levels of benefits while cutting overall spending on these programs. Responses to State of the Union addresses and Saturday radio messages can be good venues for starters. A repeated articulate simplified explanation will do well. But to expect immediate results would be foolish. After all, the prediciment we are in now is the result of an aggressive and incremental push by the left over the last 100 years. So, we need to look furhter down the road. Getting young conservatives like Rubio and Cruz, for starters, as our spokesmen would be a good idea. Ryan, in my view, while good where he is at, is too much of a wonk and not really able to convey these things in simple terms. Besides, I think he has demonstrated he is too beholden to the GOP establishment. And we have to stop being afraid to demonize the demons for crying out loud! This, “there ain’t no good guy there ain’t no bad guy. There’s only you and me and we just diagree (my apologies to Dave Mason)” approach has got to go. It is killing us.
Another thing is there needs to be an effort aimed at encouraging young conservatives to consider careers in the Federal Departments that control our government. We can talk about cutting spending all we want (and yes I agree we need to cut spending) but if the leftists who control these governemnt bureaucracies are still able to determine how the money is being spent, the probelm will not just not get better, but will get much worse.
“With the Democrats in control of the Senate, the best the Republicans can do is to attempt to block new spending and I believe they will do that. So there will be no new trillion dollar “stimulus” and Obama can forget about Congress allocating large funds for new programs.”
With baseline budgeting, spending automatically goes up eight percent anyway. There should at least be a propaganda campaign with a view towards repealing it. Ever notice that when the Dems lose elections, they don’t give up on their agenda? They just continue pusuing it with even more vigor. Maybe one day it will dawn on the republicans that they would do well to do the same. But as it stands right now, we lose even when we win.
In the wake of an unnerving defeat in November I actually believe the Republicans haven’t done too bad so far.
With noting to add to the conversation, I looked for a word to describe the video and Robert A. Rowland’s word: “mindless” works.
Greg Mockeridge: Paul Ryan has maintained his integrity. I believe you underestimate him.
what’s the point of calling Obama a reactionary as if that’s a more stinging remark than picking apart his doctrinaire liberalism? it reminds me of how the word “fascist” is abused. why this need to appropriate rhetoric from the Left. i don’t care if something’s “reactionary” as in it’s old established opinion, i just care if it’s right or not. being pedantic i know, just certain semantics i’m not a fan of
anyway the GOP will win presidential elections in the future, sure. the question though is whether it will continue to exist in its current form, or whether someone like Jon Huntsman will come along and transform it into a less conservative party that has policy differences but no deep philosophical disagreement with the Left.
“Greg Mockeridge: Paul Ryan has maintained his integrity. I believe you underestimate him.”
I wasn’t saying anything one way or the other abgout Ryan’s integrity. It’s just that he goes along with the GOP leadership when push really comes to shove. He probably does so because he thinks it’s the prudent thing to do. And an argument can be made for that. In any event, ma main point is that Ryan is not a leading movement conservative. He is good right where he is, heading up the Budget Committee in the House.
“what’s the point of calling Obama a reactionary”
For the sake of accuracy. Obama is the tail end of welfare state liberalism, a movement that is manifestly coming to an end. He has no new ideas to salvage it and is unconcerned that the funding of it simply does not not exist. “Apres moi le deluge” might as well be Obama’s personal motto.
“the question though is whether it will continue to exist in its current form, or whether someone like Jon Huntsman will come along and transform it into a less conservative party that has policy differences but no deep philosophical disagreement with the Left.”
The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.
Greg Mockerigde: ” In any event, my main point is that Ryan is not a leading movement conservative.”
Paul Ryan did support the Right to Life and our founding principles at the RNC, and it appears these principles may be found in his work. My reference to his integrity, is to these points.
Donald McCleary: “The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.”
This is absolutely true. You are correct, Donald.
“The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.”
But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.
Thank you, Donald! I have seen very few conservative commentators make these points, but I agree completely. Of course I would have preferred an even better fiscal cliff deal, but I think that the deal we got is just about the best that anyone should have realistically expected considering we have a Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama in the White House, and considering that the tax cuts were originally implemented with an automatic expiration date.
If Congress had done nothing, the tax situation would have been much worse. At least many of the Bush tax cuts were extended — and not only temporarily but permanently. Of course, Congress could raise the tax rates in the future, but now the tax rates will not be raised automatically at some point in the future. So as long as conservative Repulicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency, a major tax increase is unlikely.
I think that the Republican caucus in the House and Senate got the best deal that they could get, and I hope to be able to say the same about the spending battle that is coming up soon.
“But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.”
Disagree Greg. The only reason Romney was nominated was due to conservatives forming a cirular firing squad, too many no-hopers (Yeah, Michele Bachmann was going to be President.) running and Romney’s cash advantage. If Perry hadn’t self destructed Romney would have gotten an early start on his retirement from politics.
The GOP controls more states now than at anytime since the twenties. (After the 1976 election the Republicans controlled one state.) Most of those state Republican parties are dominated by conservatives.
the thing about the RINO vs. true-blue conservative dichotomy is that it’s not always clear what the latter is supposed to be.
my view on this may be a little “out-of-touch” in that it’s filtered through certain conservative blogs (not talking this one,) but there seems to be a not-insignificant number of self-proclaimed true-believers who dislike the cultural conservative aspect of the party as much as the RINO consultants. they’re hardcore anti-Obamaites but their conservatism seems to be of a generic anti-government sort. the liberal “Randian right” meme was overdone but it does appear to be true in certain strains of thought, this framing of government as the Great Oppressor, every issue talked about in 10th amendment terms, and no real vision laid out for what an ideal conservative government would do.
as far as politicians i thought the dichotomy was overdone this last year. i’m not gonna gloss over his chameleon political style but Romney was the best of a weak field. other candidates had flaws that were totally separate from whether they were moderate or conservative, as he did. a “true conservative” would’ve been able to do better than him based on political talent and general appeal, the latter of which doesn’t have to = pivoting to the center.
Umm, Donald, the RINOs control the party at the national level and that’s what really counts. Romney get the nomination because he was the next in line. The only reason why Santorum got as far as he did is because he was the last not-Romney standing. He wasn’t even on the radar until after the other not-Romney hopefuls fizzled out.
the “RINO” vs. true argument seems to boil down to generic “fight harder” sentiment, not meaningful policy differences (though of course there’s occasional exceptions)
i roll my eyes at “GOP is sooooo extreme these days” rhetoric but it’s definitely true that the parties have become much more ideologically distinct
“Romney get the nomination because he was the next in line.”
No he got the nomination because he got more votes in the primaries due to a fragmented conservative field, his money advantage and because Rick Santorum could not exercise message discipline.
But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.
The RINO discourse is silly and should cease. When you are the Republican presidential nominee, you define what an authentic Republican is. The term would not have made sense in any circumstance. Prior to about 1980, the parties had programmatic tendencies, but programmatic preferences were not a boundary condition. There was a difference in priorities, associations, and sensibility that made Thomas E. Dewey distinct from Tip O’Neill; neither was spurious in his affiliations. The odd exception to this was Jacob Javits, who enrolled as a Republican and made his career within the Republican Party at the recommendation of the president of the Hatters Union, who told him he would be more utile to them as a Republican than in any other venue. His preferred affiliation was with the American Labor Party and its successor, the Liberal Party of New York.
If you can find a politician whose affiliation is purely opportunistic – and Robert Dole did once say he enrolled as a Republican because they exceeded the number of Democrats by a margin of two-to-one in his home county – that would be a RINO. The thing is, who would that be? Olympia Snowe may be an irritant, but her portfolio of expressed preferences would be troublesome to Senate Democratic whips as well. Robert Dole, Capitol Hill apparatchik though he was, was a pure product of the old-line, rural, impecunious bourgeoisie. That social stratum is very foreign to the post-1980 national Democratic Party, and Dole’s most salient preference was a distaste for public-sector borrowing. Mitt Romney is opportunistic, but would an unalloyed opportunist have attempted to build a political career in Massachusetts as a Republican?
In the above mindless video, in a low and subdued voice, almost subliminal suggestion, Obama claims to be “like Jesus.” Wish that he were.
No he got the nomination because he got more votes in the primaries due to a fragmented conservative field, his money advantage and because Rick Santorum could not exercise message discipline.
The political parties might consider attempting to rid themselves of the interminable idiot media donnybrook and hold their caucuses and primaries the 3d week of June. Hold the conventions in August and decide the nominee there. We might just be able to break the candidate-centered process and have the selection repair to local elected officials and county chairmen, re-introduce an element of peer review and deliberation into the choice (no more B.O.s), and curtail the advantage the current process gives to knuckleheads inclined to career around Iowa and New Hampshire for 18 hours a day for 18 months to the exclusion of gainful employment. William Scranton’s candidacy in 1964 lasted all of two months. More of that, please.