Posts

by on

John Nolte at Big Hollywood tries to explain what the Tea Party is all about:

“The Tea Party movement isn’t about “us,” it’s about something more important than us; it’s about this place we call America. And no bribe in the form of any kind of personal tax cut or government handout will buy us off when it comes to protecting this country.

You can cut our taxes to zero — hell, you can gift us with millions in union bribes and make-work jobs — but for as long as this socialist rampage rampages on, I and every member of the Tea Party will be back, right here fighting you every inch of the way and counting down the days until November of 2010 and 2012.”

So, is Nolte saying that it isn’t about taxes at all? If so, why hold the protests on Tax Day? It’s about the government having too much power, is it? If so, it seems strange they’ve only noticed that lately. The Libertarians have been complaining about Socialism and the increasing power of the government for decades, but only in the last year has a giant, attention-getting National movement sprung up around it, is what his argument implies. I don’t follow.

I still say Ricardian Equivalence is at least part of the reason they’re out there.

by on

A lot of people in the media are puzzled about why the Tea Partiers are mad about taxes when taxes are actually very low at present.

The answer is Ricardian Equivalence: The government did actually lower taxes; but they also increased spending, so at some point in the future, they must raise taxes to compensate.

by on

Andrew Sullivan writes:

“Palin is not appealing to the Republican super-ego (in so far as one has survived the last ten years); she is directly, umbilically connected to the Republican id (and some other male organs). Her appeal is visceral not rational….

 Who else puts all this together for the GOP? No one. Huckabee is crippled by a record of spending and leniency. Romney is crippled by being Mitt Romney and Mormonism. Pawlenty: seriously? Santorum? Ditto. Brown? We are beginning to see the depth of his predicament. DeMint? Rubio? C’mon.

Yes, many tea-partiers do not think Palin is “qualified” to be president. But primaries are won by enthusiasm and star power. Palin has both.” 

In other words, she is charismatic. No other known Republican candidate right now is. Sullivan is right to think she has a legitimate shot.

That’s not to say she will be the nominee, of course. She might not be seeking it. She could command nearly as much influence over the political system with less work by continuing to do what she’s been doing. Indeed; in the past, this has been the way of charismatic women. They do not hold the political offices that men do; they instead serve as symbolic figureheads for a movement. That’s hard to do if you’re going to be President.

It doesn’t help her cause that if she did run for President, she’d be going up against an opponent who is stunningly charismatic in his own right. I have to admit that, given the power of charisma that I have cataloged on this blog, it would be interesting to see a Palin vs. Obama election in 2012.

by on

Kurt Schlichter at Big Hollywood asks how people who support Polanski can be for arresting the Pope:

 “I don’t know what the Pope did or didn’t do – that’s for the police to deal with, along with the Catholic Church and even God Himself. The chips will fall where they may. But I know what Roman Polanski did, because he confessed to it and then ran away. And no matter how wonderful and transcendent an artist he is supposed to be – I think he’s generally a hack – the same standard applies to him that applies to everyone else.”  

Schlichter also criticizes Christopher Hitchens for his plot to arrest the Pope. (Interestingly, he doesn’t seem to point out that Hitchens himself is firmly in the anti-Polanski camp.)

However, Schlichter is right in that this provides a fascinating test of where people stand in the so-called “Culture War”. Many leftist types want Polanski to go free, and favor punishing the Pope. And indeed, this is hypocrisy. But it also reveals much about how each side thinks. Let’s compare the two men’s crimes:


–Polanski drugged and raped a child while they were both under the influence of alcohol. When a Judge reneged on his sentence, he panicked and fled the country.

–The Pope is head of an institution that has, apparently for a very long time, been covering for its child-raping members. The present Pope himself has apparently personally signed off on these cover-ups. It’s important to point out, however, that this is technically irrelevant. Even if he hadn’t, it’s his responsibility as head of the organization.

Polanski’s crimes are those of an individual against a society–an institution. Though he clearly harmed an individual, that individual subsequently forgave him. But, as those who want to punish Polanski correctly note, her forgiveness does not matter. The point of punishing him is to uphold the law, to protect society as a whole from such criminals.

The Pope’s crimes are those of an institution against individuals. Therefore, the people who are pro-Polanski and anti-Pope are, by and large, hedonists and anarchists. The people who are pro-Pope and anti-Polanski are rigorous authoritarians.

My position is that both Polanski and the Pope have committed serious crimes, and both ought to be punished for them. Those on the Right, of course, are loath to admit that an Establishment is corrupt; those on the Left are seemingly in total denial that their anti-Establishment artist actually committed a horrible crime.

by on

For quite some time–perhaps his whole career–Patrick Buchanan has been saying that World War II, despite its reputation as a Just war, was not the “Good War” it is made out to be, and, more controversially, that it was the result primarily of Britain’s blunders. He summed his case in his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War“. 

Of particular interest to Buchanan is Churchill, who he thinks is vastly overrated as a statesman and as a man. To hear Buchanan tell it, Churchill’s mistakes helped to cause World War II. Even in his latest column, he makes sure to take a jab at Churchill.

I’m really of two minds about Buchanan; on the one hand, he is a total economic isolationist. I think this is a huge mistake. He tends to be too puritanical in his views on culture. He also supports the flying of the Confederate Flag, and, most bizarrely, supports the farcical “War on Drugs”. (The only American war he does support, it seems.)

And frankly, I’m not at all convinced that his ideas about war in general, and World War II in particular, are actually correct. The Nazis seem to have imagined themselves to be inherently superior to all other people. With an attitude like that, surely they were bound to attack America eventually, no matter what.

And yet, for all that, I can’t help but applaud the man for even examining this question. So many people who claim to oppose war in principle are willing to admit that World War II was worth fighting because, in that case–and seemingly just that one remarkable case, never to be again–the enemy was so indescribably evil that it must be defeated at once. (That they were evil is certain; that there have subsequently never been others as evil is not.) Buchanan is no pacifist, but he recognizes that if he’s going to make anything like a sound case against “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy“, he has to address the prevailing understanding that the only thing the Allies did wrong was not destroy Hitler and Nazi Germany sooner.

by on

The White House has denied it, but I think it’s a brilliant idea.

When you think of “someone who won’t be controversial”, does the name “Clinton” not spring instantly to mind?

No, seriously, there will be a huge fight over whoever gets nominated. Why not make it as exciting and bitterly fought as possible?