We conservatives need to calm down

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 04/06/09 | DAVID HOROWITZ

[JasonC]

He is hoping that war is as unnecessary as it is unpopular, because he intends to never do anything unpopular, least of all with his base, who are cringing pacifists. He's wrong about that, but not because it is a diabolical plan. It's just stupid. The garden variety sort of stupid that always results from finger-in-the-wind pols listening to ignorant constituents off in fantasyland.

[JasonC]

The amendment is friendly - but doesn't change the argument.

[JasonC]

I rather doubt that is what fate has in store for him. But yeah, he's not Hitler.

[JasonC]

Methinks conservatives have been on the receiving end of more than their fair share of reductio ad Hitler arguments. In case everybody just forgot, being POed about that is what motivated Jonah to write his book, which is the proximate cause of the meme in virulent bloom on this thread. It always was ridiculous and it is just as ridiculous when you do it.

[HotLead61]

Get a grip, man.

Sounds like you think I'm out of touch with reality. Don't over-emphasize which words were capitalized. You can believe it or disbelieve, obviously your choice just like anyone else's.

Surely you've been paying attention to the ever-increasing mentions of a "new world order" (notice lower-case) in the speeches of the "leaders" of some of the nations of the world? Or perhaps rumblings about a new "world currency" under the control of the IMF (sorry, had to capitalize that one)?

Maybe it would jar you out of your serene slumber to realize just how much damage has been done to this nation through most of the 20th century, and only accelerating now as I write this...all to bring us to the place where we can no longer resist the tyranny of global control?

I may not be a Bible scholar or any other scholar for that matter, but I can certainly see the handwriting on the wall. BTW, if you thought you were going to get me all riled up, you're wrong as can be. Actually, you have actually helped me to decide to post all of this, instead of the shortened version you read (and misinterpreted) in #166.

[JasonC]

There is way too much uninformed and poorly aimed criticism, and not enough that is actually on target. He is being called a communist for what he shares with George Bush. Instead of attacking waste in a "stimulus" bill the right is talking as though Bernanke and the Fed are a grand communist conspiracy. That makes everything the democratic left does as legitimate as technocratic pragmatism and it is an utterly foolish line to take. Next the right will claim the administration are all traitors because they serve coffee at state dinners.

[JasonC]

I've read Pat Robertson and I know him and everyone who buys a single line of that BS to be utter fruitcakes. Buy more tinfoil.

[HotLead61]

Has he got a mouse in his pocket?

You folks crack me up. This is the best site ever. I wish I was that talented.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Has he got a mouse in his pocket?”

I think the “we” implies that he has a turd in his pocket.

[HotLead61]

I gotta tell you, hb, you should be writing columns somewhere. Seriously. Ever try that?

[roamer_1]

We "conservatives"?

RINO apologist.

[HotLead61]

We’re watching him on Iran & Defense, also. It’s not “either-or”, at least not with me (mr. tinfoil hat)

[HotLead61]

GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt.

[HotLead61]

This is one i can agree with you on.

[JasonC]

I would venture to say I know as much about American conservatism as any man living. And being readily disconcerted isn't a sign of maturity or judgment. Of course I understand that lots of you are in denial about the state of the economy and how much corporate leaders have capitulated, that private markets simply refuse to allocate capital and voluntarily give that role to the government instead. I understand that this practical reality fails to fit your Reagan-era view of the world, to such an extent that you cannot wrap your minds around it and move on. But that isn't conservatism, it is just your own lack of imagination, understanding, and practical realism. It is, in fine, your ideological utopianism, which is emphatically not a conservative trait.

"But I want the private sector to decide" this that and the other. Sure. Well, here is what the private sector has decided - capital entrusted to the US treasury, 2%; capital entrusted to US banks, 12%. Capital entrusted to General Motors, 40% with no volume. The private market *refuses* to hand over allocation decisions to *other* private-market actors. But is entirely willing to let the US treasury do it.

Your approval of that fact, your bare recognition of that fact, is not required for it to be a fact. And the dominant, operative fact at this present moment in US economic affairs.

That being the case, the Federal Reserve and the US treasury are in charge of the survival and the success of capitalism. The private sector *gave it up* six months ago.

The Federal Reserve and the US treasury, yes even under Obama, desires the continued existence of capitalism. Capitalism will survive and in no great span of years it will once again prosper. That is its nature and its genius, that it can rise from the dead and adapt. But no, you cannot ensure that survival by insisting that it has already happened. It hasn't.

It is *normal* that the government support private industry and private finance in the smash. It has been that way since the 1600s, as long as there has been modern finance and modern capitalism. Your ideological utopias being too narrow in time, too limited in historical sense, too formulaic and not empirical enough about the messy practicalities of our true history, are *your* problem.

So no, screaming that socialism is upon us and all is doomed, when the Fed and treasury are in the act of saving capitalism from one of its periodic, self inflicted fits of madness, isn't going to win you anything. It isn't a true diagnosis of what is happening, it counsels all the wrong policies (because entirely unworkable), it refuses to face facts, and it is far too mired in a mere passing episode that will soon be forgotten by everyone other than the hyperventilators peddling right now.

The author is right. You need to *calm*. *Down*.

[HotLead61]

and I know the country and conservatism are both going to be fine in the long run, as well.

Just because certain things have happened in the past, does not automatically mean they will again. What you are referring to may indeed be cyclical in nature, but there WILL be an end of this present age. God's justice demands it. When He remakes things the right way, then there will be rest. But not here...Things will NOT just bump along like they ever have.

Remember, it had never rained before the 40 days & 40 nights, and many were mocking Noah for building the ark.

[JasonC]

It is going bankrupt. Pay attention.

[HotLead61]

Don’t worry, Jason, there’s plenty more he’s doing to destabilize the foundations besides just economic assaults. There’s plenty to focus on. Too much. In fact, it often seems overwhelming.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I understand your point of view and where it is coming from. Although I disagree, I don't see political humor as a problem. In college we studied the differences between Democratic Socialism, Fabian Socialism, the Marxist radicalism of the Saul Alinsky type that Obama likes, and Communism. As well as the Soviet Union and the American liberal movement in the Democratic Party which has always viewed Socialism more sympathetically. Perhaps that is where the informational content can be improved.

There are important issues involved. We can disagree and move on from here. If you can't get hold of Mark Levin's book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George Nash or Thomas Sowell's book Marxism would also come in handy. Opposition to statism is integral to conservatism. It is not based solely on economic determinism or militarism. Playful political humor is also part of that. The nutjobophobia tangent, while interesting and amusing, will not advance conservatism very far in this cycle. It is important to distinguish between political jokes and the more serious charges of Communism that might arise.

Whatever Disagreements Obama might have had with Edmund Burke and the Marquess of Salisbury perhaps Prof. Strauss's Natural Right and History would be the route to go for those seeking a different kind of debate. Or do you think Rousseau? With the crapstorm and nutjob problem at the basis of this. It would seem like Obama would find some sympathy with Rousseau, particularly with the Third World Banana Republic direction. He could always take that up with Sarkozy the next time he is explaining why he is embarrassed by America. It all boils down to the problem of the will and how they view the claims of the state over the individual.

[JasonC]

You will find it a slow business praying your opponents out of the White House. Hell will freeze over first.