Posted on 07/25/2007 1:03:35 AM PDT by goldstategop
Ted Sorensen’s service to John F. Kennedy (as both US Senator and President) earned him legendary status as the most celebrated speechwriter in US history. Sorensen crafted the famous “Ask not…” phrase in the inaugural address, and wrote JFK’s stirring “New Frontier” acceptance speech when he won the Democratic nomination in 1960.
Last week, Sorensen (now 79) wrote another speech intended to inspire the Democratic hordes who scent victory in another watershed election. He wrote a proposed “Acceptance Speech” which he means to offer to whichever candidate prevails in the nomination fight.
Some of the carefully crafted language reads like vintage Sorensen – and could be reasonably effective if properly delivered by a skillful speaker. “In this campaign,” the speech declares, “I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest.”
At this point, however, Sorensen delivers a definition of unabashed liberalism, which, if echoed by the actual Democratic nominee, could guarantee victory for the GOP: “Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals – liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, bur rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, more prosperous America.”
Conservatives should rejoice at the prospect of fighting out an election campaign on precisely this question: is government indeed the “best means of creating” a better America—or is it an intrusive, annoying, arbitrary, largely destructive force that consumes too much of out time, energy and money.
I remain confident that the majority of our fellow citizens will warm much more readily to the Ronald Reagan formulation that “government isn’t the solution; government is the problem,” or the Jeffersonian declaration that “the government that governs best, governs least.”
Even Tom Paine, the Revolutionary pamphleteer generally beloved by the secular left, declared: “While human society general counts as a blessing to the individual, government at the very best amounts to a necessary evil.” In other words, Tom Paine directly contradicts the Sorensen approach.
Mitt Romney has recently lashed out at Hillary Clinton for suggesting the replacement of an “on your own society” with a “working together society.” As the former Massachusetts aptly observes, even welfare-state societies in Europe have begun rejecting that approach. He suggests that Hillary’s “working together,” “shared responsibility” mantra means that “she wouldn’t be elected President of France today, never mind the United States.”
Even Americans near the bottom of the economic ladder feel instinctive (and appropriate) revulsion to the liberal message that “you can’t make it on your hope” and that government provides your only hope. Optimism about personal advancement represents a core American trait that cuts across all racial, educational and ideological lines.
If the Democrats follow Ted Sorensen’s advice, and Hillary Clinton’s recent rhetoric, their victory in 2008 hardly amounts to a foregone conclusdion.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I am not nearly - or at least - 'quite'as confident here. Not as confident in the voters. . .the mindthink; the expectations that are being 'Liberally fashioned' by our schools and media. And can only wonder what 'Clinton, Inc.' might have in store as Hillary pushes forward.
On a 'fair field'. . .and with only 'Reason-capable' voters participating; I would agree with Michael.
Beyond that; I do hope and pray he is right.
“Liberalism correctly defined is sanctimoniousness: the notion they are absolutely right and all their opponents are absolutely wrong and they view government as the answer to all our problems.”
Quite so, which is why they deserve what they love to hate these days: the current administration, which has stolen their thunder and re-packaged it as “compassionate conservatism”.
A PAIR OF LIBERALS
by Joe Sobran
I’m a soft-hearted man. I weep easily at human
misfortune and even old movies. I am plumb full of the
milk of human kindness, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.
All the same, there are people for whom I find it
hard to work up much pity. My tender heart is offset by a
cruel sense of irony that awakens when certain
malefactors get just what they deserve. Then my tears of
sympathy yield to raucous, almost diabolical laughter. I
wish I could call it Olympian, but I’d be flattering
myself.
Today liberals hate President George W. Bush and
Vice President Dick Cheney. I’m not too crazy about those
two birds either, but there’s a difference: they are
exactly the bogus “conservatives” the liberals deserve
and ought to be grateful for, or at least accept as a
penance. So why are liberals rejecting their own?
Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, liberals
have worshipped the executive branch of government,
celebrating those presidents who have usurped most power,
just as they have shown enthusiasm for foreign “leaders”
(their euphemism for “dictators”) who have ruled most,
er, progressively. They’d like us to forget how they used
to coo over Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and even,
briefly, Pol Pot, who was, in the words of a NEW YORK
TIMES columnist, “building a new society” in Cambodia.
Roosevelt, avatar of centralized power and one-man
rule, not only befriended “Uncle Joe” Stalin but modeled
his New Deal on Mussolini’s Fascism. Why he disliked
Hitler is anyone’s guess, but I think we can safely say
it wasn’t humanitarian principle.
“Principle?” The word should never be mentioned in
the same breath with Roosevelt. When the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down his Fascist-inspired National Recovery
Act as unconstitutional, his response was to try to turn
the judiciary into a tool of the executive branch. This
was too much even for his own party, and he failed —
though he later got his way by filling the Court with his
compliant cronies.
Liberals supported Roosevelt’s efforts to transform
the very nature of the Court, and after that they also
applauded the Court’s own usurpations of power. All this
is good to bear in mind as they rail against both
executive and judicial abuses of authority today.
Here is John Updike writing in THE NEW YORKER:
“Roosevelt put a cheerful, defiant, caring face on
government at a time when faith in democracy was ebbing
throughout the Western world. For this inspirational feat
he is the twentieth century’s greatest President, to rank
with Lincoln and Washington as symbolic figures for a
nation to live by.” He also lauds Roosevelt for “bending
the old rules.”
What utter nonsense. I’m shocked that a man as
intelligent as Updike could write words so asinine.
Imagine what Jefferson might have replied. If you can.
“The old rules”? Would that be the U.S.
Constitution? Well, as I never tire of repeating, the
Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of
government. And we can thank three generations of
liberals for that — including those who feel that
arbitrary executive and judicial power has suddenly
fallen into the wrong hands.
If only we can get it back into the hands of people
who know what to do with it! People named Clinton, Obama,
Edwards, or Gore, or even a progressive-minded
Republican.
Updike reminds me of those old Russians who long for
another Stalin. Before you reply that the Russian
national character is traditionally autocratic, ask
yourself whether it differs all that much from the
American national character. See how Ron Paul, the only
champion of constitutional government in the Congress, is
doing in the polls, and maybe you’ll have your answer.
Bush and Cheney, with their “big-government
conservatism,” are a loathsome pair, all right, but they
differ from liberal heroes only in detail. This is why
they, and the Republicans who aspire to succeed them in
office, drive real conservatives nuts.
Now that so many nominal conservatives have
forgotten what real conservatism is, I pray that some
wise liberals will discover it. The genuine article could
hardly be more different from the deformed and abnormal
stuff Bush and Cheney stand for. It’s a lovely attitude
of caution, prudence, respect for tradition, love of
peace, and fear of concentrated power — the opposite of
all the official fanaticisms of our age.
“JFK would be considered a right-wing nut by today’s liberals.”
Why, because he cut taxes dramatically and believed in a strong national defense against Communism? What the Dems don’t want you to know is that many thought Nixon the less conservative of the 1960 POTUS candidates.
Carl Bernstein, flogging his new book about Hillary, made both Tavis Smiley and CBS Late Night a month or two ago. By coincidence, or possibly because of his book's topicality in view of last week's Democratic debate, his interviews on both PBS and CBS were re-run tonight a few minutes apart.
Hillary's friends noticed her sanctimoniousness years ago, Bernstein commented on both shows, and one of them blamed that sanctimony for the defeat of Hillary's socialized-medicine plan. She also lost a lot of Democratic support in the Senate when she told Sen. Bill Bradley, in a group that included Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (whose seat she now occupies), that she fully intended to "demonize" (her word) anyone who "tries to slow down this train."
After Hillarycare failed, by the way, Hillary and Bill ginned up a bill that allowed insurance companies to own medical practices -- heretofore utterly banned as a howling conflict of interest -- knowing that the companies would rush in to "control their costs" and bugger up fee-for-service beyond all peradventure and put most of the small practices out of business. The Dynamic Duo did this the better to make people dissatisfied with the overweening presence of insurance companies. They deliberately screwed up fee-for-service. Which, in the end, is understandable as more moral arrogance on their part. They hosed a lot of people's lives, and they did so selfrighteously, cocksure that that was the fastest, and therefore most "moral," way to persuade people to get to the "right answer." That's the moral arrogance of the Left, over and over again. Breaking eggs to make socialist omelets.
JFK browbeat Nixon relentlessly over the Eisenhower Administration's response to the Quemoy and Matsu provocation by the Communist Chinese (they were shelling the Nationalist-held islands), and also over the (nonexistent) "missile gap". Nixon couldn't reveal, without betraying Colonel Penkovsky, who was a top CIA asset, that the "missile gap" issue was a Democrat fraud. Both he and JFK had been briefed on Penkovsky, and so that's why JFK invented the "missile gap" as an unanswerable defense-policy challenge to the Eisenhower Administration (and by extension, Nixon). Kennedy pounded that issue during the famous debates that radio listeners thought Nixon had won, but which JFK won on TV by adroit exploitation of "telegenics".
Then Jack's guy Dick Daley got together with Sam "Momo" Giancana and stole the election in front of God and men, just like Dick's son Bill Daley tried to do for Al Gore 40 years later.
That wasn't conservative!
“thus, by no means is a democrat victory assured in 2008.”
quite the opposite. rest assured of a democrat victory in 2008. they have a majority of the electorate and they have most of the voting machines. the blue states will spread a red stain across the country and socialism will gain a tyrannical hold over economic life. imho
(hold on to your wallets and practice being serfs.)
That’s putting it mildly. He hates them passionately. He also has this “nobody but me is a real conservative” thing.
He has put himself in the category of writers that used to be interesting but have now gone around the bend. He is joined in this club by Charlie Reese, and the now completely insane Paul Craig Roberts.
“Footnote — keep in mind, when quoting Joe Sobran, that he has a tic about Jews. Got him kicked off the board of National Review 20 years ago. Bill Buckley gave him a 10,000-word trial by essay in the magazine and then bid him adieu.”
I do keep that in mind. It’s unclear what that has to do with the points he makes in this note, however.
Minn’s point about “only I am a conservative” is odd, too, since he goes on to list two others (and he could list many more) who have expressed their reservations about the interventionist, Wilsonian turn in Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1835625/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.