Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (77819)	2/22/2010 12:43:57 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Re: Beck and T.R. By: Jonah Goldberg The Corner Ramesh - I guess I'm slightly more in Beck's camp than yours with regard to the T.R. quote. Here's the full quote from his New Nationalism speech (emphasis mine): <<< The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again, comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great generals who gained their promotion by leading their army to victory. So it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary. >>> There are a lot of problems with this, and I'd be surprised if you still think the quote is harmless. If the portion in the Milbank column were merely an expression of personal opinion, I could agree with your take. But T.R. saw the State (hopefully with himself at the helm) as the arbiter of what did and did not represent a "benefit" to the community. That this is a deeply statist mindset seems pretty obvious to me, not least because T.R. admits that he thinks this standard should usher in a new era of greater state power and "governmental interference with social and economic conditions." You ask: "Isn't part of the argument for tolerating concentrations of wealth in a free-market society that in one people can amass fortunes only by bringing benefits to the community?" And I would respond, yes it is. But another part of the argument is that the state (usually) isn't better at allocating wealth than the market is. And another part of the argument is that your wealth is your wealth, no matter how concentrated it is. The state may take its share based on the reasonable needs of the government to serve its functions and duties, it cannot and should not take more than that just because you have "too much wealth." But you know all of this. As for all the readers who have been weighing in on T.R., let me just give my short take. T.R. was a better, saner, man as president than he was after he left the oval office and went much further to the left. He abandoned trust-busting in favor of corporatism and became a thoroughgoing Crolyite. He was always a more admirable, decent and heroic man than Woodrow Wilson, but T.R. worship is nonetheless fraught with peril for conservatives. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77819)	2/22/2010 1:27:02 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Beck vs. the GOP Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner I'm noticing some pushback on Twitter and in my inbox in response to Bill Bennett's Beck post. Here's one e-mailer who begins by saying that Bennett is "wrong": <<< His message is that there is no difference in the progressive wing of the Republican party and the Democrat party. John McCain and the progressives in the Republican party led the party to the largest and most profound political defeat imaginable. They rejected the conservatives in the party and told us that we had to be more like the Democrats if we were to succeed. We conservatives decided that if we had to be like Democrats we may as well vote for a Democrat—and we did. Here, in Florida where I live, when Obama won the election Gov. Charlie Crist lectured us at great length about how the Republican party must be more "inclusive" in order to be elected again. He, then, embraced President Obama and his ideology. Being a political opportunist Crist thought that becoming Democrat Lite was the route to join the Senate and the country club set in Washington. The progressive wing of the Republican party is awash with people like John McCain and Charlie Crist—and George W. Bush for that matter. It is clear that the Republican party is in the firm control of the country club RINO progressives. That is the message of Glenn Beck. It may take a generation and a new political party but we conservatives will no longer allow the John McCain RINOs to use us to get elected—-and then promptly set out on a course to appease the Democrats. We know that the progressives make lofty statements for public consumption and then go to the country club that night to discuss with their Democrat cohorts how they can fool us tomorrow. Remember, Mr. Bennett, it is the party leadership that has abandoned the ideals and principles of the Republican party. It is not us conservatives that abandoned those ideals. Furthermore, if the RINOs continue on their duplicitous course of political accommodation then we will leave the party for a new one. It is no more complicated than that. >>> I, of course, agree entirely that Crist is not someone conservatives or Republicans should rally behind. And, yes, the national Republican party did, in fact, put their support behind Crist almost a year ago. But the Republican party also has Marco Rubio — and hard-working, principled conservatives in Washington and around the country. While it may feel good on a Saturday night to pretend that's not the case, it does a disservice to reality and to some good men and women in statehouses and on the Hill with Rs after their names. Of course Republicans deserve criticism — goodness knows the history of National Review is full of words aimed right at them. But, to borrow from Beck's construct, let's be (a little) sober about it. For the sake of truth and justice and avoiding the Perot temptation. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77819)	2/22/2010 1:36:03 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 90947

Better Dead Than Ted Mark Steyn The Corner Jonah, amen on that revolting TR quote. The statism is explicit, and the threat of government coercion hardly less so. Once the state thinks of itself as the sole legitimate arbiter of what "represents benefit to the community", there's almost no restraint upon its power, and you're a fool if you think it can be confined only to the top-hatted plutocrats. In Britain, restrictions on heart-disease treatment for smokers, hip replacements for the obese are justified on the grounds that, while there may be benefits to you, there are insufficient benefits for the broader "community" that has to pick up the tab. It was also a recurring sub-text to my battles with Canada's "human rights" regime. Its most zealous enforcer, and the Dominion's self-appointed Hatefinder-General, justified his pursuit of errant citizens in very TR terms: <<< What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak? >>> So even free speech has to demonstrate a "benefit" to "the community"? Nuts to that. In the end, God and posterity will judge whether our lives have been of "benefit to the community". When the state does so, "benefit to the community" is code for statist compliance. It's bad enough that the modish obsessions of the day result in craven corporations getting shanghaied into signing on to every pathetic "green initiative" - such as BP's funding of the launch of IPCC honcho Rajendra Pachauri's warmographic novel. If a rich man wants to blow it on coke and hookers, I'm not sure - compared to George Soros or even Bill Gates - that that isn't on balance less harmful to "the community". corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77819)	2/22/2010 1:45:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Bennett v. Beck Jonah Goldberg The Corner I'm proud to be a friend and fan of Bill Bennett's, but I guess I'm going to disagree with his take on Beck as well. Bill's point about Beck using his own experience with alcohol is a good one, but I think he overstates it. He may be right that it's a bad habit, but that strikes me more like an argument to be had within the recovery community than the world of politics. Allusions to "twelve step" culture are commonplace in political discourse, and while they may or may not be over-done from time to time, I don't know that they rank all that high on the "dangerous rhetoric" scale compared to other language one hears out there, including at CPAC. The audience certainly understood where Beck was coming from. I also think Bill makes a fair point when he argues that Beck was too sweeping in his suggestion that the GOP has learned nothing and has not changed his ways. And yet, what better place than CPAC for conservatives to keep up the pressure on Republicans. Beck's overall point — that Republicans need to come to grips with their recent failures and mistakes — is right, and one many in the GOP still need to hear. Nor was he alone in making such points at CPAC. Bill's third point, that Beck's morning-in-America-as-hangover imagery was too downbeat and sour is again fine. But it's awfully selective. Beck's speech was rousing and unbridled in its love for the American way. The bit about the hangover was a point about policies he believes are misguided and has been warning about for a very long time (for the record, I think Beck often overstates the threat of fiscal Armageddon, but I don't think he's crazy for pointing to the very serious problems we've stacked up, on a bipartisan basis). Also, as a strategic and tactical matter, having Beck give this sort of keynote makes a lot of sense to me because it is very important for the Tea Partiers to feel they are being heard by the broader conservative movement. If that requires the GOP taking a few more, mostly well-deserved, lumps, that's a small price to pay. Bill concludes: <<< The first task of a serious political analyst is to see things as they are. There is a difference between morning and night. There is a difference between drunk and sober. And there is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. To ignore these differences, or propagate the myth that they don’t exist, is not only discouraging, it is dangerous. >>> I agree with all of this. But is the keynote address at CPAC really the place for serious political analysis? I'm not saying it should be a venue for make-believe and pabulum. But the keynoter's job is usually to fire up the troops at the end of a three-day conference with more speeches and panels than a meeting of the Comintern (that's certainly what Rush did last year). Contrary to the impression Bill leaves in his critique, Beck's speech did exactly that for most attendees and viewers. It was just a slightly different cut of red meat. And, I should say, it had a lot more historical and policy substance than many such speeches. Bill Bennett is a true Reaganite. And as such, he is a true believer in a sunny, optimistic, approach to politics and life (which is why so much of the "Bennett is a scold" stuff is so ludicrous). Constitutionally, I'm more in Bill's camp then Beck's on this score (though I'm not sure the camps are very far apart), but I don't think Bill is being fair to Beck here. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (77819)	2/22/2010 2:00:53 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

The Warrior and the Priest Jonah Goldberg The Corner I love all the TR commentary around here. I should say that in response to Jay, before I read his examples of "unfair attacks" on Wilson I was going to say that no defenses of Wilson are forgivable, but I think Jay's right on those. More broadly, as men, I think the key difference between TR and Wilson is that TR was a fighter while Wilson was a hater. Colonel House's advice to those seeking a favor from Wilson was: "Discover a common hate, exploit it, get the president warmed up, and then start on your business." Flattery wouldn't do it. Reason wouldn't do it. Begging wouldn't do it. Only hate fired up Wilson (David Pietrusza's fantastic book, 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents begins with this insight). Wilson was a categorical thinker and detested categories of people. Roosevelt was a man who disliked categories of people, too, but his categories weren't abstractions. He detested slackers and the like, but he could admire men of any race or station if they weren't slackers. They were both moralists, but TR's moralism wasn't an abstraction; Wilson's was. Disagreement with TR was invitation to a battle for victory. Disagreement with Wilson was proof that that the dissenter was evil. The difference explains why TR had an authoritarian bent, but Wilson a totalitarian one. In this sense (as well as many, many others), TR was simply the better man. corner.nationalreview.com