Monthly Archives: March 2010

Frum’s Unabashed Conservatism?

…reaction from political allies and foes of Frum’s unabashed conservatism

Frum’s unabashed conservatism?

Bwa ha … bwa ha ha ha … bwaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …

Frum’s unabashed conservatism?? Did he really write that? No, he REALLY did write that. 

Bwa ha ha … bwa ha ha ha … bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … ha ha … ha

Oh make it stop. My stomach hurts.

Let me catch my breath…

OK now on a more serious note, notice that Worthington decries the “intolerance of divergent views” and “authoritarian control of thought” on the right, but yet he labels supporters of Beck and Limbaugh as the “rabid right.”

So let me see if I understand how this works. Centrists get to bemoan the lack of tolerance of divergent views in the conservative movement when it affects people to the left of the movement, but labeling those to the right of the movement rabid (an obvious attempt to marginalize them) is perfectly fine? OK. I think I get it now.

Sorry for all the Frum posts recently. I have been going to FrumForum to follow the controversy and these gems keep popping up. I just can’t help myself.

Frum vs. Erickson

Two of our favorite pseudoconservatives to skewer are fighting each other. Erick Erickson, who edits RedState and has a new gig with CNN, actually fancies himself a rock-ribbed conservative representing the base of the GOP against RINOs like Frum. Frum sees himself as a centrist voice of reason galliantly battling to keep his beloved GOP from being dragged over the abyss by us flyover country yahoos. But Frum and Erickson have one thing on which they wholeheartedly agree; both passionately hate real conservatives to their right. This is demonstrated by Erick’s disdain for Ron Paul and the subjects of sound money and the Fed (Apparently Erick is a Bryanesque populist desperately seeking to keep the little man from being crucified on a “Cross of Gold.”) and his obsession with mainstream respectability and weeding out taint. And by Frum’s … well … Frum’s whole career.

Frum happens to be in the right in this case because Erickson totally misspoke. He actually got it completely backwards. But I don’t think it is fair to say Erick lied. He didn’t intentionally lie. He just didn’t know what he was talking about. (BTW, I’ve noticed that trend a lot among pundits. To say someone lied when they clearly just got the facts wrong. Pundits are a cranky lot, I guess.)

Hatin’ On Whitey

Jim Antle points out that the Left continues to berate the Tea Partiers and other dissenters from the current regime for the morally reprehensible crime of being White. The comment thread is quickly growing so I am reproducing my comment here.

“We see it every time conservatives have any political momentum whatsoever. The idea is that by shouting “racist,” these liberal columnists can make their opponents shut up.”

This is exactly why it is more important for conservatives to call out liberals for their Cultural Marxist PC grandstanding of this type than it is for us to jump on the bandwagon of condemning fellow conservatives for every perceived transgression from right think. In the current political climate, ideological anti-racism is a much bigger problem than is racism.

The Tea Party phenomenon is a perfect example. That Tea Party protestors are overwhelmingly White is a demonstrable fact that is easily observed by all. The desperate attempts by some Tea Partiers to identify Black or Hispanic protestors among their ranks only produce the exceptions that prove the rule. Whether we like it or not, the constituency for limited government is almost entirely White. Not that all or even most Whites favor limited government (I wish), but that those who do are almost all White. This is a fact. This should be a potentially value neutral fact. Like a disproportionate amount of people who consume Tecate beer are Mexican. But it is a fact that the protestors ignore or attempt to wish away at their own peril. (For example, not openly realizing the problem that demographic change brought on by mass immigration [LEGAL and illegal] presents for their movement and goals.)

But the Whiteness of the crowd, again a potentially value neutral observation, is held against it by the likes of King and Rich and the rest of their PC henchmen. Its very Whiteness alone condemns it. Look at all those White people without the magic dust of diversity. They must be up to no good. They must have malevolent intentions. They are probably … GASP … evil racists. But no one would ever condemn a pro-immigration rally for being monolithically Hispanic. Or a civil rights march for being overwhelmingly Black.

This IS the Cultural Marxist double standard. Everyone else gets to play the game of ethnic self interest, but if Whites do it it is the worst of all possible sins. Well screw that. The demonstrably true “charge” that the Tea Partiers are almost all White should be greeted with a big “Yeah. What about it?” That the constituency for limited government and preserving the vision of the Founders is White should mean nothing more than that Blacks and Hispanics need to drop their support for the nanny state and get on board limited government with us White folk.

Big Spender Steele Has Got To Go!

A lot of people have been unhappy with Michael Steele’s performance at the Republican National Committee (RNC). The perception is that Steele has been doing more self promoting than RNC promoting. But this revelation should be the final straw. Steele has got to go.

The stuff about the risque club in California doesn’t bother me as much as the overall lavish spending. It is not clear that the RNC had control over where the SoCal money was spent and just remitted a bill after the fact. (If they had prior knowledge then I would be upset.) But there is no excuse for stuff like this:

The RNC spent more than $17,000 on private jet travel in February as well as nearly $13,000 for limousines and car services, and also ran up tabs at luxe hotels including the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000); the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons ($6,600) and the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000). The GOP’s controversial midwinter meeting in Hawaii ended up costing the party $43,000 in expenses, not including airfare, the records show.

Steele has come under steady fire for his financial stewardship of the organization. The RNC had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show. The Daily Caller website, which first noted the new FEC filings, also reported that Steele had suggested that the RNC should purchase a private jet for his travels after he first took over the job in January 2009.

I realize that what Steele does may require purchasing plane tickets at the last minute rather than waiting for a rate he can afford on Travelocity like the rest of us peons, but private jets? Dude take Delta. Coach. The Beverly Hills Hotel? How ’bout you stay in the Motel 6 like the rest of us yahoos in flyover country your party pretends to represent.

Addendum: BTW, we here at CHT warned you about Steele (here and here) early on. We hate to say we told you so but …

Obama consolidates power

Fresh from his triumph over clueless Republicans to socialize the nation’s health care, the King of the World took his victory lap on Air Force One:

President Obama rallied U.S. troops and pledged continued partnership with Afghanistan during a previously unannounced trip to the country Sunday. …

Earlier, Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the Presidential Palace to discuss progress by the Afghan government in strengthening its ability to run the country and provide security for its people.

By “partnership,” Obama means “subservience to the DC Empire.” Just as “discuss progress” means “give orders to the puppet government.”

Then Obama encouraged the legions, cleverly crowing about his own victory over his domestic political rivals:

To cheers from the combined joint task force that includes troops from all four services, Obama said: “The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. … We keep at it. We persevere. And together, with our partners, we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that.”

Get that? Obama’s perseverance in pushing through the Federal takeover of health care represents the Empire’s vitality. The royal reference in “We persevere” is hard to miss.

The government’s consolidation of power at home reinforces its consolidation of power abroad. For an empire, national and international power are one. So liberals cheering on socialized medicine, and conservatives cheering on the troops endorse each other, whether they want to admit it or not.

Splitting a Cosmo

Before I go into a blogging hiatus for Holy Week and return after Easter, I wanted to mention one last thought I had about this whole Frum business. I have written in the past that the division that really influences our politics was that between provincials and cosmopolitans. Neoconservatism is definitely a cosmopolitan movement and Frum’s recent actions suggest a split amongst cosmos. It is obvious that Frum, a hardcore cosmo, does not care for the provincial base of the party and has been saying so since last year. Most of his fellow neocons (Kristol et. al) probably feel the same way but are also practical enough to know they cannot control the Republican Party without provincial acquiescence so they continue to be loyal to the party and loyal other cosmos on the right while Frum attacks them both.

Thus the tragedy of Sarah Palin, instead of taking advantage of this cosmo split with her own iconoclastic thinking (which she had shown before) that could have engaged a broad coalition of support, she basically became the neocons’ puppet. While this cosmo faction may still pin their hopes to her, Frum and company are well on their way to supporting Obama in 2012 as the head of some new pro-Israel, pro-interventionist, centrist coalition.

And how does Larison define “centrism”? wickedly and accurately so:

Centrism” is the consistent pursuit of shoring up and reinforcing the status quo and serving the entrenched interests of existing powerful institutions.”

More on the Frum Firing

Sorry for all the Frum posts, but I have been following this story pretty closely and stumbling on some good stuff that I want to pass along.

First, our friend Tom Piatak has weighed in on the matter at Chronicles.

Salon has the story here. As expected they are sympathetic with Frum’s centrist attacks on the GOP right, but they also note the irony of the former purger getting purged.  

but that kind of bombast — “war is a great clarifier” — sure doesn’t look great in retrospect. Frum and his allies weren’t just trying to drum some unsavory types out of the movement. They were also working at making it impossible for a Republican to oppose the party line on the crucial issue of the day — an issue on which they turned out to be disastrously wrong themselves.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Now is where it gets really interesting. Frum insinuated to Politico that his firing was related to donor pressure. This had seemed to be the universal assumption.

Charles Murray, also an AEI scholar, objects to this view at the National Review Online blog and defends the climate of intellectual freedom at AEI. He suggest Frum was fired because he never actually bothered to show up at AEI.

Frum responds defending his claim that the firing was politically motivated. Frum wonders if AEI was holding back in the health care debate for fear of misstepping.

Bruce Bartlett, who was also fired from his job at a conservative think tank for straying from the party line although his dissent was from the right, weighs in here. (For whatever reason [bitterness perhaps?] Bartlett is now a Frumesque centrist himself.)

And last but not least, our friend Daniel McCarthy weighs in at AmConMag. Dan points out, as did Bartlett, that mandating insurance coverage was actually one of those “conservative” counter-proposals that movement “conservatives” often trot out when they are trying to offer up some liberalism light “free market” alternative to whatever outright socialist proposal the Dems are pimping at the moment.

Is Conservative Debate on Lincoln and the War Between the States Moving Our Way?

I think it is. This piece of Lincoln haigiography was posted at The American Spectator today. Notice the comments below the article. Ten years ago there would have been almost nothing but hearty “attaboys.” Five years ago even. But today you can’t get away with uncritical praise of Lincoln on conservative websites without being met with resistance. The debate is moving our way. There is hope. It’s faint. But there is hope.

I’m not a marching anymore

All those who went to Washington D.C. last weekend to protest nationalized health care did they best they could to try and influence the outcome.

However, from now on, I think it’s high time we stop marching on Washington D.C.

We need to march at the state capitol, at city hall and at the county courthouse. Even the local township hall.

The only way nationalized health care and such nationalizations of our economy and culture are going to be beaten is one block at a time.

Then one township, one county, one town. one city, one state.

Going to Washington only reinforces the idea of the imperial capital, the place where all the decisions are made that effect our “puny” lives. It reinforces the idea the masses have to spend every penny to head to the imperial center and then hope their voices will be heard. It reminds one of watching peasants locked outside the castle waiting for the king to see them.

Unfortunately mass protests on Pennsylvania Ave. often time take a back seat to backrooms in the Capitol and the chants of the people drowned out by the opening of briefcases full of money.

The only way we can decentralize is by not playing their game, not by buying into the notion they are oh-so-important or it’s Washington and nothing else matters.

Let others think that by filling the National Mall they somehow are having influence, like so many have done before. One does not need to gather in one central spot anymore to organize or network.

The internet has taken care of that.

Instead, what needs to be stressed, is what one can do right at home.

One of the reasons the orginial “tea parties” were successful last spring was the fact they weren’t held in one spot, they were held in communities all over the country, in places large and small.

Unfortunately there are those within said movement who wish to organize, centralize, and take over, making them conform to their agenda. They want to hold “national conventions” people can’t afford to attend to bask in the spotlight and let everyone know they’re in charge. It’s what they’re good at because it’s what they’ve been doing throughout their careers.

A better strategy, would be instead to find areas of the country one can declare “liberated zones”, free from the healthcare mandate, or Real ID or even the drug war for that matter. Anything one can think of that they can opt out of. Even Social Security or farm subsidies too.

The Free State Project is a good example of this. So is the Second Vermont Republic. The Berkshires in Massachusetts developed its own currency. Maybe the state of Oklahoma, not too enamored of the Feds right now I do believe, could be declared a “liberated zone.”

Declare enough liberated zones and you can create a momentum for freedom and create a rival areas for the centralists to deal with. And a liberated zone can be as small as a city block (a block of Mifflin Street in Madison was one such “liberated zone” during the 1960s for example). it could be your neighborhood, your home, your computer.

Your mind.

Regardless where it is, to create such places and be active in them will do more to loosen the centralist grip (at least from the start) then trying to fight them on the battlefield of their own choosing.

This is not to say don’t support a candidate for Congress who shares such views like a Rand Paul for example. It’s always important to take the battle to where the enemy exists.

But we can’t loose sight of the fact the best chance for success lies where we can best affect the outcome.

Right here at home.

Mrs. Frum on Hubby David’s Firing

This basically confirms, if there was any doubt, that he was canned for straying on health care.

The irony of the Frums whining about David being canned for straying from the party line, in light of the fact that he has made a career out of purging people, is palpable.

Frum has addressed (about half-way down) the “Unpatriotic Conservatives” article via Twitter and seems unfazed by the irony.

Articles for your consideration

After healthcare, is nationalization of retirement accounts next? asks Ron Holland

J.J. Jackson’s latest  “A Dime’s Worth of Difference is not Enough.”

From Pat Buchanan “The Sydney Carton Party”

Thomas Fleming latest is on the term of “social justice”

Congratulations to the Free State Project for getting past 10,000 members.

Freedom in one word to Mike Boldin: Nullification!

David Frum No Longer Employed by American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Was he fired? It sure sounds like it. It was likely over his dissent from the GOP party line of all out opposition to Obamacare.

I don’t think “conservative” think tanks requiring strict adherence to GOP or movement “conservative” orthodoxy is necessarily a good thing, but my concern would be with them purging dissenters to their right. That the moderate and neoconish AEI felt the need to purge Frum for deviating to the left says something about how far left he has drifted.

Addendum: Here is Richard Spencer’s take.

HT: LewRock

Pro-War/Anti-Immigration vs. Anti-War/Pro-Immigration

James Antle asks in an article today at VDare:

Should the paleo movement support the congressional Republicans who stopped amnesty for illegal immigrants? Or should it jettison them because of their near-unanimous support the war?

Do paleos support a peace candidate like Gary Johnson who favors open borders? Or do they back someone like Tom Tancredo, who is a stalwart on immigration but speaks casually of bombing Mecca?

It is unfortunate that one must choose between the two. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, “invade the world” is almost always followed by “invite the world.” But if one must choose between (A) a pro-war/anti-immigration candidate versus (B) an anti-war/pro-immigration candidate, then I’d opt for A. And here’s why. Whatever damage irresponsible Wilsonian nation building around the world can do to the U.S. (e.g. bankruptcy, backlash, casualties, etc.) at least it’s temporary. At least in theory we can at some point in the future change course and undo some of the damage. The effects of immigration, however, are irreversible. Demographics are destiny. Once the U.S. demographically becomes Brazil, that’s it.  There’s no going back.

Glenn Greenwald on the Silencing of Coulter

Glenn Greenwald is a smart and honest liberal. His criticisms of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration were as spot on as anybody’s if you could disregard the obvious leftism on other issues that sometimes crept through. Here he is in honest liberal mood decrying the silencing of Ann Coulter. But catch this. He says:

“Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite “hateful.”  So, too, is anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently “civilized discussion” to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it.”

But yet he opened his column this way:

The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited…

So no one in Canada is allowed to be an “arbiter,” but he gets to call Coulter a “hatemonger?” Hmmm… Curious. Now I get that he is not threatening her with jail, but the threat of legal prosecution is not the only way that people are intimidated into silence. That is the entire point of political correctness. In fact, political correctness and the fear of being called a hater of one sort or another is a much more ubiquitous mechanism of silencing dissent in the modern West than is hate speech laws.

I believe that the use of the term fearmonger is legitimate, and I use it frequently. A lot of the pro-interventionist “bomb ‘em all” crowd can very accurately be described as fearmongers. But hatemonger is a meaningless slur that can almost never be accurately applied to anyone. It is a thought stooper. That is its very intent. It rings pretty hollow to decry hate speech laws that can’t tolerate dissent when you use PC language precisely intended to silence dissent.

Paul Craig Roberts Ending His Column

PCR is signing off. I don’t always agree with PCR, and I think his rhetoric is sometimes so overheated that it becomes counterproductive. He often gives the uninformed the ammunition they need to too easily mischaracterize him as a leftist instead of the rightist critic of the current regime that he is. But that said, he will be greatly missed.

As an aside, if you have ever heard PCR on the radio, he has a very pleasant, old school, upper class southern accent, a distinctive kind of intra-Southern accent that you rarely hear in these modern days of amalgamation.

Ann Coulter Appearance at Canadian University Shouted Down by Thugs

Ann Coulter is a mixed bag. She is great on immigration, and one of the few “mainstream” conservatives who has dared to raise the demographic issue. She has played nice with Ron Paul. But she is disasterous on the War and foreign intervention. But we can all decry this? Yesterday her speech at a Canadian University had to be cancelled due to thuggish protestors. This follows on the heels of her being sent a threatening letter by a University administrator “reminding” her that “free speech” in Canada does not mean the same thing it does in America.

Answering Census Questions on Race

Some movement conservatives recently have advised people to answer the census form falsely (or leave questions blank), especially on race. But is this wise? Since it will mostly be European Americans who will answer these questions dishonestly, it seems that such a tactic would be counterproductive. As Steve Sailer points out today:

As far as I can tell, the best thing you can do for yourself and your loved ones is to answer these questions honestly. If you are white and non-Hispanic, and you put that down on the Census form, then the quotas for protected groups will be smaller than if you try to be clever and put down something else.

In a world of official and de facto disparate impact quotas, numbers count. And by diminishing the size of your group, you just make things worse for everybody in your group.

Tom DeLay Now Lobbying for Amnesty

So says Mark Kirkorian at National Review Online. (Even National Review gets something right every now and then. You know what they say about a blind squirrel and a broken clock.)

I shouldn’t be surprised then that DeLay is now lobbying for amnesty or, as his Roll Call piece says, “We also must find a way for people who are here illegally to pay taxes and get right with the law.” So, other than Gingrich, it looks like the brain trust in, and behind, the Republican House takeover — Armey, DeLay, and Norquist — are amnesty supporters. Great.

Amnesty would be demographic suicide for the GOP. This is so obvious that it can not be missed. Republicans who support amnesty are signing the death warrant of their own party.