Sacrifice

Early in his term, President Obama stressed shared sacrifice as a means to correct the various problems with which he said we were beset. He has shied away lately from that terminology. Why is that?

Perhaps it is because having it called for it incorrectly, and then been stung with his own blatant hypocrisy, he now also incorrectly reckons it politically damaging to call for sacrifice at all. Or perhaps it's just incompatible with his new lifestyle.

Like Dan Perrin, I think Mr. Obama's slide in the polls is a self-inflicted wound, almost an own goal.

Americans understand sacrifice. If all virtue consists in risking something of known value for something of greater, but uncertain value, then some sort of sacrifice is inherent in all acts of virtue.

In our nation's past, we have rallied to the cry of shared sacrifice. In times of war, we have been willing to risk life and limb for the sake of a cause no more definite than putting down evil in some far off place. When presented with a clear goal -- defeating an enemy, sending a man to the moon -- we are inspired to greatness. When some are called on more than others, such as in Southeast Asia, we rebel.

And so it is with economic hardship. When asked to sacrifice to get the nation past economic hard times, we chafe. Such sacrifice is passive, and we are a people of action, immigrants all. To come to these shores we first had to leave somewhere else, and I think that's burned into our culture. Or perhaps we merely distrust that the sacrifice will indeed be shared.

And we are already sacrificing, thank you very much. With the onset of $4 per gallon gasoline in 2008, Americans quickly changed their consumptive ways, altering their lifestyles. More and more of us are turning away from living by credit. We're cutting back on spending now, and saving for later. We're responding to the crisis in a rational way, which happens also to be the virtuous path that got our parents and grandparents through Great Depression I.

We suspect that government policies forcing cheap and easy credit led us into the economic mess, and the only way out of the mess is to shun the cheap and easy credit.

And 10% of us are unemployed; even more underemployed, our talents lying fallow. In that situation no one wants either to sacrifice or to benefit from the sacrifices of others.

Even more fundamentally, we don't believe that such sacrifice would be required if we hadn't wasted our resources on foolish consumerism. We believe in the economic engine our personal liberty creates, and we don't think it ought to be controlled from Washington.

Mr. Obama conceives of sacrifice as shared sacrifice, a thing imposed on the People by the State. And it is not to all of the people that he calls, but merely the Haves. The Haves are asked to sacrifice their capital, the very thing most Americans believe will enable them to end our economic troubles. The Have Nots are not called to sacrifice, but to benefit from the bounty he will lay before them.

And at that, whether Have or Have Not, we chafe even more.

Sphere: Related Content

Permissive Parents, Leftist Children?

I have an hypothesis. It is that children of permissive parents grow up to be liberals, while children of strict parents grow up to be conservative.

I'm sure, before I even start, that if my hypothesis is true it is only a matter of degree, a question of percentages and leanings.

What I know for certain is that liberals generally act like spoiled children, and never want anyone to suffer consequences for their actions (nor to be rewarded for hard work).

Sphere: Related Content

Obama To Make Draconian Budget Cuts

President Obama, after spending a mere trillion dollars on government growth in an effort to "stimulate" the economy, and pushing dramatic leaps in Federal spending in his budget, has laid out a bold plan to cut as much as $100 million.

Budget:	$3,000,000,000,000
Stimulus:	$900,000,000,000
Cuts:	$100,000,000

How can he make these awful cuts, while spending in other areas barely keeps pace? Is he going to order women and children to starve in the street, while AIDS patients are left with no medicines, and senior citizens choose between paying the light bill and buying cat food to eat?

Sphere: Related Content

Bottom-up, or Craniorectal Inversion?

During this year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama posited that the economy should grow not from the top down, but "from the bottom up".

After the election he is showing his true big-government beliefs in action. Only government can solve our problems, he says.

Clearly, he's a top-down kind of guy.

Sphere: Related Content

I know: let's borrow billions

of dollars, use it to build a train no one will ride, justify it with a problem that doesn't exist and that it won't address, and wait for an earthquake.

Sphere: Related Content

The Trouble with the Base

Reading this Corner piece from the great Ramesh Ponnuru, two things struck me.

First, I noticed a trend: people are picking apart the Republican party and the conservative movement into constituent groups -- Married Anglo-Saxon Protestants, conservative Catholics, et al. Seeing a lack of physical diversity, they then prescribe as remedy the abandonment of foundational ideology.

The troubles with that line of thinking are legion, but the main thing about it is the continual confusion of the Republican Party with the conservative movement.

The Republican Party is a liberal organization. It was founded in the liberal furnace of Abolition, tempered by war with the truly conservative forces of Southern aristocracy, and had its new car smell become malodorous with the stench of Reconstruction. It was the party of the intellectual, of noblesse oblige, and of the black voters they freed from bondage.

Nowadays, the Republican Party exists as a vehicle to win elections, based primarily around the popularity of laissez faire economics. That social conservatives largely identify with it is because A) social conservatives are largely free-market types, as well, and B) they have nowhere else to go.

Modern Conservatism, forged by Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan, is an alloy of the conservative notion of not fixing what is not broken with the ideas of Enlightenment and classical liberalism. It attempts to keep America fixed in its foundational form. It's a bit of a coincidence that conservative in America means classical liberal.

This unification of the Republican Party and conservatism is a holdover from Ronald Reagan, so forged by the power of his ideas and his steadfast support of them. People are naturally wont to label themselves, and to adopt the ideas of those peers and leaders with whom they largely agree. This, too, welds the Republican Party and conservatism.

But even with the difference between the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it must be recognized that the people who make up these groups are motivated by a set of beliefs. Almost all Republicans have as a core belief that people are better off when they can fend for themselves economically. Government, in this mindset, exists to defend us from each other and from outsiders. As Reagan said, government is not the solution, but the problem.

Another core Republican belief is that all men are created equal. We do not want discrimination, even if it is intended to remedy earlier discrimination in some other direction.

And it is these ideas which fundamentally bind us together, and these ideas we seek to further.

We cannot therefore reach out to other "groups" without recoiling in horror at the thought of dividing mankind up into groups. It stinks of the corpse of that war we fought in our youth, and it is not our way.

We believe our ideas are of universal appeal, and do not need to be packaged to pander to people based on their personal place in the nation's demography.

The second thing that struck me is that Ramesh Ponnuru is for some reason still reading Kathleen Parker.

Sphere: Related Content

Typical Bush Derangement Syndrome at Salon

Somehow managing to type wearing a helmet and drool bucket, David Sarota writes:

It wouldn't be the George W. Bush we all know if our shamed president didn't spend his remaining White House days in a final fit of polarization.

Wha? Talk about paranoia! Mr. Bush wants the Columbia Free Trade deal to go through, and knows that it's union opposition which makes Obama also oppose it. And why are the Democrats so in favor of an auto maker bailout? The unions want it, to keep their fat, blood-sucking lifestyle going.

But Sarota harkens back to NAFTA, managing to blame Bush41 for forcing it on Bill Clinton, which in Sirota's alternate reality caused the unions to skip voting in 1994. Those things must all be Known Facts on the Left, but having lived through that era I could have sworn I heard the centrist Bill Clinton championing NAFTA. And the 1994 elections were all about conservatives rallying behind conservatism as expressed by Newt Gingrich.

In Sarota's fantasies, George Bush is some kind of Machiavellian mastermind, rolling the dice with the world's economy in order to depress voter turnout in 2010:

Therefore, if Bush successfully uses the economic emergency to hustle a faction of Wall Street Democrats into supporting the deal, he will have potentially engineered 1994 redux: Democratic infighting, a demoralized progressive base, and these newly elected fair-trade Democrats humiliated — and thus electorally endangered — by their own party's standard bearers.

Dude. No one will vote, or not vote, two years from now based on whether there is a free trade agreement with Columbia. Lots of union members may not have jobs without one, but what do they care? They have the One.

Update: I think I like Kim Strassel's take better.

If there was a moment that highlights to what extent the Democratic Party has become captive to its special interests, this might be it. Mrs. Pelosi and Harry Reid have spent this week demanding that Washington stave off a car-maker collapse. What makes this a little weird is that Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are Washington. If they so desperately want a Detroit bailout they could always, you know, pass one.

w/t Yid With Lid

Sphere: Related Content

Would Someone Please Tell Michelle Catalano That She is an Idiot?

Writing at PJM, Michele Catalano struggles valiantly against her horrible straw-foe, the idea that community service is the same as slavery, or variously, Marxism.

Another name for slavery is "involuntary servitude". Is "compulsory service" the same thing?

"Involuntary" is clearly a synonym for "compulsory".

Do I need to explain the link between "service" and "servitude"? I think I do, because while the root word is the same, the meaning is different, and it has confused you.

"Service" in this context means two things: performing duties at the behest of the government and for the benefit of someone who (it is hoped) will be helped by those duties. A connotation of service is one of learning by humility the positive blessing of helping others.

But learning by humility implies that a person lowers himself to perform some action or to be receptive to a teaching moment. That is not possible, or at least is contraindicated, when an outside force such as the government is mandating the action. Context in this case is indeed king.

Compelling service is also making the same mistake as when we take the personal virtue of liberality and apply it to government. Liberality is seeing the best in others and giving to them regardless of their worthiness, in the hopes that our selflessness will improve them, or at least show our own goodness and lack of greed. When government does it, the virtue is lost, if only because giving requires the government first to take.

So even if we grant as totally positive the nature of the actual services to be performed, and ignore any possible negative consequences or side effects of this massive undertaking, being forced to give service to others is involuntary servitude, slavery by another name.

But here is some really sloppy thinking from Michelle Catalano:

It’s interesting how many right-leaning blogs are frowning upon the community service idea, though some are being thoughtful about it. Generally, people on the political right tend to belong to churches, and churches are big proponents of community service. So why the negativity? Many blogs are also equating Obama’s community service pitch with Rahm Emanuel’s:

When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community, or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream.

This is not socialism. This is not Marxism. This is the mark of a country that knows it needs to rely on those who can to help those who can’t. It’s the mark of a country that knows it needs to depend on its citizens to make their communities flourish. It’s taking the “ask not what your country can do for you” attitude and transforming it into smaller clusters, where we ask what we can do for those we live with and around, instead of waiting for people to do for us. It’s how communities become stronger, how they grow, and how a strong, giving community makes for a strong, giving nation.

So because we want churches to do it, we should be okay when the government does it? That is exactly the problem! We want churches and individuals to do community service, on their own, without the government being involved. If the government starts funding community service, no one else will do it. And individuals, of their own sense of charity and liberality, are the best judges of who should get the help -- and who should not.

Repeating: we like community service. We don't like the government to fund it.

As for the equivalence of paid community service and Marxism, let's first establish one thing: under Marxist/socialist regimes, there is universal paid community service. Under some hypothetical minimalist, libertarian anti-Marxist government, there would be no paid community service.

Rahm Emanuel pitches community service as the way to ensure the American Dream, but it's a total non sequitur. The American Dream is the any of us can start with nothing and succeed by our own merits, without the government's help. We don't need the government.

Needing the government is what Marxists do.

Sphere: Related Content

What's In It For ME?

I'm scared.

For a long time we've known that when the people learned they could vote themselves money from the Treasury, the end was nigh.

They have learned it.

Whether it's Barack Obama's "tax cuts for 95%", jobs Americans won't do, corporate bailouts, or the third rail of Social Security, the appeal is always to the personal interest of the voter.

Joe the Plumber was attacked on the basis that he'd be better off under Obama's tax plan -- and unsubtly, that Joe must be stupid not to know that or dishonest in failing to admit it.

Illegal immigration is pushed on us with the offer of inexpensive farm produce. The principle of knowing that our neighbors and townsfolk have the same loyalty to America that we have is never mentioned.

The financial market bailout, or at least the direct mortgage buyout part, was sold to us on the basis that even if we did everything right, our neighbor in foreclosure would harm our home values.

And Social Security, of course, is renowned for destroying the careers of those who try to do anything but increase the benefits of those receiving it.

The list goes on. We have become a nation of beggars, lazy bums who are happy to see any expansion of government, endure any loss of liberty, as long as it benefits us personally.

There's nothing in that for me.

Sphere: Related Content

Still Undecided? Where the Candidates Stand

The McCain site actually has a very good breakdown of the issues in the campaign and the reasons to vote for the hero McCain instead of the demagogue Obama.

If Obama wins, I'm not moving to Canada -- but I fear for our nation.

Barack Obama is the culmination of the 1960's radical movement. If you like that sort of thing, he's your guy.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack the Sophist Makes Personal Attack on Everyone

Quoth The One, alias Barack the Taxer:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich. I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific...

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

In the first place, Barack the Insufferable Sophist misrepresents both his opponent's position and his own. He has repeatedly railed against "tax cuts for the rich". His case has been one of playing the dissatisfaction and envy of those who have less against those who have more. He knows he isn't going to make anyone rich by giving them $500 or $1000 of someone else's money. The point is "fairness", not the creation of wealth, and it makes a lie out of your claim to love the rich.

It would be far too cynical a reading of that statement to accept it in the only sense in which it could be true. Barack the Five Year Planner wants everyone to be rich so that he can tax them all.

But in the end it isn't to make someone rich that Barack the Disingenuous Windbag wishes to give them money; it's to make them dependent. Wealth comes from risk and work, and there is neither risk nor work when people vote themselves mammon from the treasury. There is only abuse of the democracy for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another is socialistic. It just is.

Giving out checks is not the way to get people "rich", even as Barack the Slider variously tries to redefine richness down from $250,000 to whatever figure he needs at the moment. If by some perverted definition of richness he claims that he is bringing wealth to those who don't have it, he is engaging in a get rich quick scheme.

People get rich on their own, when the grubby little hands of government are kept out of their pockets.

But then comes the insult: Barack the Weasel implies that anyone who doesn't want to give him money to give to others is "selfish".

Government is not the best judge of how I should use my money. I am. Without Barack the Thief's stinking taxes, I would be in a much better position to give to others.

Barack the Tempter is urging others to be envious. Envy is a vice, not a virtue, and those who encourage others in vice bring peril on themselves. Better to have a millstone tied around one's neck, in fact. As Jeremiah Wright would say, "That's in the Bible."

Sphere: Related Content

Ross Douthat Starting to Clue In

Douthat finally notices that no matter what the McCain campaign (or anyone else who doesn't support Barack Obama) says or does this election cycle, he or she will be called a racist. That's because liberals think of liberalism as the definition of goodness.

Since they know conservatives don't espouse liberalism, they think conservatives must be somehow corrupted by some other external force that keeps the conservative from expressing his inner liberal.

That is partly why sex scandals among Republicans (not all of whom are actually conservative) get so much attention: it reinforces to liberals that Republicans (and by extension, conservatives) are all, or substantially, deviants suffering from repression of sexual gratification. Oddly, liberals typically don't see anything wrong with the behavior itself, as long as one shouts it from the rooftops.

Similarly, liberals see Republican financial corruption as greed luring what would otherwise be a fine and good person away from liberalism, corrupted by evil corporate interests.

And finally, to Douthat's problem: liberals charge Republicans generally and conservatives specifically with racism because racism explains to the liberal why anyone would be against the obvious goodness of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Never mind the obvious injustice to Paul; there are for more Peters, and each Peter gets to vote at least once.

Sphere: Related Content

Yes, Nicole, You Are A Racist

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, commenter Nicole writes:

Today I referred to my hair as "brown" ("dark brown" to be exact). I then proceeded to say "I hate the color brown--it's not strong enough; it's boring."

Am I a racist?

The obligatory reply from Scott in OC:

Yes, Nicole, you are a racist. Not for hating the color brown, but because you used the word "dark" in a potentially insensitive manner that could incite hatred. Shame on you. The only way to absolve yourself from this unspeakable act is to dye your hair blue and vote for Obama.

But neither Nicole nor Scott fully plumb the depths of the PC pogrom which would take place in the event of an Obama Administration, enjoying majority support in both Houses of Congress.

Nicole used the word 'color' and even labeled something a particular color. Obviously racist.

Nicole noted that something being a particular color was not 'strong' enough. Truly racist.

Nicole said she hated something for being a particular color. Clearly racist.

In the looming Obama Administration, no mention of color, except perhaps in the abstract, will be acceptable. A notable exception to this will be teaching preschoolers the names for all the colors, which will be seen as the fulfillment of a basic human right to be maintained by a Children's Administration, with a Cabinet-level Secretary of the Child.

Sphere: Related Content

The Tax Issue is a Distraction

We pay enough in taxes to run the government that we ought to have. We don't pay enough to run the government that we do have.

The answer is to shrink government, not increase taxes.

Because as long as the government spends more than it takes in, eventually we (or our children) will have to pay the price.

Unless, that is, we can vote ourselves out of paying taxes altogether, so that other people pay instead.

Sphere: Related Content

The American Dream

Since well before the credit market crisis first hit, we've heard a lot about the American Dream. In the context of illegal immigration, the American Dream was expressed as coming to America to build a life for a family. Much of the discussion now focuses around home ownership, as if owing a mortgage is the pot of gold at our rainbow's other end.

But that isn't it at all, and the misguided effort to prematurely supply people with homes and mortgages outside their means I think is a direct result of misinterpreting the Dream.

Now Joe the Plumber has been supposedly pursuing the American Dream by wanting to own his own small business, making money rather than earning it.

All of these things -- supporting a family, owning a home, building a business -- are just stops along the way, and are neither necessary nor sufficient components of the satisfied Dream.

The American Dream is that anyone can start with little or nothing and become as wealthy, powerful, or successful in whatever endeavor desired, limited only by ability and willingness to work.

An essential part of the Dream is that there are no limits on it. Even more, the Dream seems hard to define precisely because no one gets to say what it is that we strive to achieve; that's our call.

It's different here because we don't rely on the government, charities, the god of luck, or anything else outside ourselves to fulfill the Dream.

American Idol captures the Dream and encases it in shiny clamshell plastic packaging, almost impenetrable but apparently worth the effort for those for whom fame beckons so strongly.

Barack Obama appeals to the American Dream, and in so doing reveals Martin L. King's other Dream to be one and the same with the American Dream: Dr. King dreamed that the American Dream would apply equally to all, regardless of skin color; Obama shows that it does.

Sarah Palin does, too, and her story resonates almost as strongly with her supporters as Obama's does with his.

The fundamental American myth, and one in which I believe, is upward mobility. We're limited only by innate sloth, folly, and poor discipline.

We've always idolized those who achieve on their own merits success in life, especially from humble beginnings: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, and many others all started with the odds against them and are remembered for their journey as well as for their destination.

Now the barons of Wall Street and those of Silicon Valley are alternately idolized and demonized, in a budding national schizophrenia. Do we still believe the Dream, or does it somehow stop at $250,000?

And will the politicians stop pretending that they have anything at all to do with helping us to achieve it?

Sphere: Related Content

Redistribute the Wealth, Says The One

Barack Obama is a socialist. He believes that if one person has more than another, it's the government's right and duty to even things out.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- Barack Obama

Via Gateway Pundit:

Sphere: Related Content

Why Ayers Matters

Now that I no longer care who wins the upcoming presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama, there are only a few reasons for me to blog on it.

One of those reasons is bad logic.

There are many who will see the McCain campaign highlighting the Obama-Ayers connection as mere guilt-by-association. We know that, logically speaking, associating with evil doesn't make one evil. Even if Ayers were evil, merely associating with him doesn't in and of itself make Barack Obama evil.

However, there is much more to the relationship than that. The two have known each other for years, perhaps since Obama was an undergraduate student. Ayers hired Obama to distribute between $50 and $150 million for selling anti-capitalism in the Chicago public schools. You don't hire someone to give away that kind of money unless the two of you are in sync and believe in the same goals. There is clear evidence that Obama and Ayers are cut of the same political cloth.

But when Hillary Clinton brought the subject up at a debate during the Democratic primaries, Obama said that Ayers was "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He lied about the relationship.

But here's the thing: Ayers was a terrorist as a young man, setting bombs in the Pentagon, at police stations, and in the home of a judge in the attempt to influence a trial. He has never repented of these actions, saying he wishes he'd done more. Obama should not have worked for him, but he did. And now he wants out of that decision.

So he says that Ayers was fire-bombing judges' homes with their children asleep in bed while he, Obama, was only eight years old, so it doesn't matter.

It's an exercise in non sequitur. The issue is not how old Obama was when Ayers did his evil; the issue is that Obama shares this guy's views and helped him spend money to promote those views. And then he lied about it.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Loses Mind

He wants the Federal government to buy up all the "bad mortgages" in the country, to write down the principal to the current value, to let people stay in their homes?

Trying to outspend the most liberal Democrat in the history of liberal Democrats.

I no longer give a damn who wins.

That's kind of freeing, now that I'm there.

Sphere: Related Content

Hair of The Dog That Bit Us

The financial crisis: companies with lots of bad mortgage paper can't get loans, and the fear is that will spread to other companies, with no exposure to tricked-out crap mortgages.

But it's not happening. Anecdotal evidence says that people are still getting mortgages, people are still delivering supplies on net 30 terms.

The whole thing is a sham and a trick to avoid short-term pain.

Well, Washington and Wall Street had their party. Liberals made sure that people who didn't deserve to get loans got them, and got to live in places they couldn't afford. But that party is now over: the oil price run-up and the real estate bubble burst have signaled the keg running dry. Now people in homes they can't afford are realizing that they've been had.

Now the people who got us into this mess want to have the government buy up all of those bad mortgages, to keep the party going. What we need to do instead is suffer our collective hangover, and remember why it is you're not supposed to drink so much.

Sphere: Related Content

Voting For Economic Self-Interest

Benjamin Franklin said"When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

Commentators are astonished that middle-class conservatives seem to vote against their economic self-interest by voting for Republicans. Let's break it down.

First, we believe that, as the cliche goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The economy is not, as Marxists believe, a zero-sum game, in which some get rich only when others get poor. More often, either everyone prospers or no one does.

Suppose two people acquire wealth at different rates, one becoming only a little better off while another becomes filthy rich. The social justice crowd would have us believe that the people who are only a little better off are actually worse off, because their envy blinds them to reality. The gap has widened, which they take as conclusive evidence of injustice.

If you have no car, and someone sells you his clunker at a bargain price, you are happy. Then, when the former owner of your clunker drives up in a Certified Pre-owned Lexus, you're envious: you have a clunker, and he has a Certified Pre-owned Lexus. When is your car going to break down? Yet before you had to walk to work in the snow and rain, and now you can drive. You're not driving a Certified Pre-Owned Lexus, but you're not driving Certified Pre-Owned Nikes, either. You're better off, not worse off, and the circumstances of that other fellow are irrelevant except to your own envy.

And thus is it in general.

But back to voting: a person's vote indicates his mindset: is he voting for what's best for him, or is she voting for what's best for her country? To the extent that a single vote matters, a person ought to cast it in favor of something larger than his own petty interests, if that is defined as what the government is going to give him.

We have public schools. They should be teaching that Franklin quote, and from it the principle it conveys, which is as old as democracy. Perhaps then the people would know that their vote is an important choice between the health of the Republic the satisfaction of their own envy.

Sphere: Related Content