This week, Congress took up a non-binding resolution honoring the birthday of Confucius. It’s nice to see Congress putting their time into such vital and pressing matters.

Rod Dreher has a lengthy post on the current political climate that sums up my feelings almost exactly. Here’s the money quote, but you should definitely read the whole post:

My liberal friend and I agreed that following politics is no fun these days, that neither of us could muster the kind of hate for the Other necessary to hold one’s own in the public square today. It’s not so much a matter of virtue as it is sheer exhaustion, flat-out boredom, enervating cynicism, or some combination of all three.

The anger is not new of course; we all know some on the left came unhinged during the Bush years. I’m not here to assign blame or engage in third grade finger pointing. I don’t care who started it. I just wish we could have political discussions with anger and rage, that we could discuss actual ideas and their merits (or lack thereof).

Instead our political discussions these days are just screaming matches, sometimes literally. Listen to pundits and you’re unlikely to hear a reasoned discussion about the issues of the day. Instead, you’ll hear about how about how President Obama wants to destroy America or how Republicans want sick people to die quickly or some other nonsense. People that makes such idiotic pronouncements are not reprimanded by their side; on the contrary, they are held up as rolemodels, as “principled”. Nevermind these people rarely ever accomplish anything (had you ever heard of Joe Wilson or Alan Grayson before their respective antics? Of course not. Is it likely either will craft any significant legislation in the future? No. But they “spoke for the people,” whatever that means, and become rock stars for engaging in behavoir that would get them sent to the principal’s office if they were in second grade).

I’m a political junkie. I majored in political science and even earned a Master’s degree in it. I plan to eventually persue in a PhD as well. I served as an officer in College Republicans for two years, volunteered for several campaigns, and wrote about 70 columns for my student newspaper, almost all of them political. I’ve maintained this blog, focusing on politics, for almost six years.

Yet, try as I can, these I can’t muster much outrage, nor much excitement. I didn’t vote for Obama in ‘08 and almost certainly won’t in ‘12. I oppose nearly all of Obama’s domestic agenda. I just wish his opponents could focus on explaining why his policies are bad for America and why they should be defeated instead of simple hatred. I also wish his supporters–Jimmy Carter, I’m looking at you–would acknowledge there are rational arguments to be made against his policies instead of simply casting them as racist rubes.

In short, I wish our leaders could act like adults. Most of all, I wish we had leaders who would offer proactive measures to address the problems we face as a country, instead of just demonizing those with whom they disagree. Rage and anger may make for entertaining TV and radio, but ultimately it just makes us cynics and discourages good people from entering the political realm.

Lots of debate lately about the role of intellectuals in the conservative movement. Anyone who’s been paying attention has surely noted the movement’s swing in a more populist direction. Notably, we have Rush Limbaugh calling out intellectuals for daring criticize Sarah Palin and Tennessee GOP Chair Robin Smith bashing “intellectual snobs”.

Now, nothing I am about to say should be construed as an endorsement of everything intellectual. As Thomas Sowell points out, intellectuals have been wrong countless times over the years. But to imply that intellectuals have no place in the GOP is not the way to success.

It is ironic that conservatism has become so populist. This is a new phenomena. If you read the writings of conservative leaders of the past (William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, for instance), you will find constant warnings about the dangers of excess democracy. Such concerns should not be surprising. Conservatism is at least partially rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition which teaches us that we live in a fallen world and that human nature is essentially bad. Believing this, why then should we believe in the infallibility of the masses?

If you are more secular, then you should also appreciate that conservatism is rooted in our founding documents and in the political ideals of our Founding Fathers. Our Founders did not give us a democracy; they gave us a republic (something most seem to have forgotten). If you read their writings, you again you will find warnings about the dangers of too much democracy. The conservative populist cannot find much support here either.

Still, if one wants to win elections, one must appeal to the common man. Albert Jay Nock and Russell Kirk are great, but it’s hard to build a winning campaign on pessimism. So some comprises must be made, and intellectual ideas must be made practical. We can debate about political philosophy until the cows come home, but, unless we win an election, we can do little about it. The Barry Goldwaters and Ronald Reagans of the world were able to put ideas into action, and helped move America rightward. Both conservative intellectuals and populists should be able to agree that this is a great thing.

So if the GOP is to win again, it must keep both its intellectuals and its populists. Yes, intellectuals can be snobbish and yes they are sometimes wrong, but ideas can only spring from thoughts. If a movement is to succeed, it must have new ideas.

Cross posted at Tennesseefree

There is much I admire about the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Sure, it’s one dimensional, but her emphasis on individual liberty was worthy of respect. It’s not necessarily pro-virtue, but it is pro-liberty.

However, personally Ayn Rand was a rather bizarre and contradictory figure. For a philosopher who espoused such radical notions of individualism, she sure demanded conformity from her followers. This predictably created a quasi-religion around Rand in which she is seen as something of a messianic figure.

A good example of this cult can be seen in this editorial by Harry Binswanger rejoicing at the death of William F. Buckley:

Buckley, more than anyone else, is responsible for subverting the “conservative movement,” turning it into its current, depraved status as the anti-reason, anti-man, welfare-statist “religious right.” The world is well rid of him.

Arguments aside about the proper role of religion in the conservative moment, it takes a certain kind of zealot to take such pleasure (He beings the editorial with “William F. Buckley, Jr. is finally dead.”) in the death of what was a decent man. It appears that Buckley didn’t grant the proper reverence to the messiah of “Objectivism”, and Biswanger responded emotionally, much as a fundamentalist Christian might to an attack on his faith. So much for reason.

I’m saddened to learn that William F. Buckley, one of the intellectual fathers of modern conservatism, has passed away at his home in Stamford, Connecticut. He was 82.

Buckley hosted Firing Line from 1966-1999 and founded National Review, and was also the author of several spy novels. Buckley was also a fusionist who sought to unite conservatives and libertarians which helped lay the groundwork for the Reagan presidency. His brand of conservatism was intellectual, not the emotion-based partisanship of most of today’s conservative pundits on cable news and talk radio, and conservatives of today would be well served to read some of his writings.

A great man has passed. RIP.

Do all humans yearn to be free? Bret Stephens thinks not. He makes a strong argument.

Walter Williams is, as usual, exactly right:

Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it. That also applies to contentious national issues such as Social Security and health care. You take care of your retirement and health care as you please, and I’ll take care of mine as I please. If you prefer socialized retirement and health care, that’s fine if you don’t force others to participate. I’m afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of government to impose their preferences on others.

Former GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert is leaving Congress:

Hastert served as speaker from 1999 to 2007. The longest serving speaker was Democrat Sam Rayburn of Texas, who held the post for over 17 years. In mid-2006, Hastert became the longest serving Republican speaker, surpassing fellow Illinoisan Joseph “Uncle Joe” Cannon, who ruled the House from November 1903 until the Democrats regained the majority in March 1911.

Hastert took over as Speaker following the fall of Newt Gingrich, but unfortunately backed away from many of Gingrich’s policies. Under Hastert leadership, the House passed massive budget after massive budget, and government grew at an unprecedented rate. Fiscal conservatism went MIA. He also presided over a time of increased government meddling in private lives. His legacy will also suffer due to his handling of the Mark Foley situation and Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections that ultimately cost him his speakership.

In spite of all this, I get the impression that he is a genuinely nice guy. Hastert served as the Gerald Ford to Gingrich’s Richard Nixon: a mild mannered, unassuming leader who was far more difficult to demonize than his predecessor. But unfortunately, it seems he stayed in power for too long.

Randy Barnett takes an interesting look at libertarian divisions over war and foreign policy. Money quote:

Many libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam’s regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive in nature.

Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

Read it all.

DaveG, examining polling data and some recent trends, suggests that the Rockefeller Republicans, a minority in the GOP for over 40 years now, may be on the rise again. I hope not, but clearly the warning signs are present.

Just finished reading Barry Goldwater’s autobiography, and it got me to thinking… Barry Goldwater was pro-choice, pro-marijuana legalization, and pro-gay rights. Would one of the fathers of modern conservatism stand a chance in a Republican primary today?

Sigh. It certainly looks that way.

Two weeks ago Glen Dean defined conservatism, and then asked numerous other bloggers to do the same. I was one of the bloggers he asked, so I will do my best to explain what conservatism means to me.

First of all, I believe in a small, limited government. This is the core of conservatism in my opinion. I am not anti-government. I recognize the need for a government. Unfortunately, our current government has become far too big; it meddles in areas it has no constitutional right to. In my view, the federal government should only do the tasks outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Once we start ignoring the Constitution, we essentially descend into anarchy. This, I would argue, is happening now.

I believe that capitalism is the most moral and just economic system. I recognize that it is not perfect, but it is as close as any human system is likely come. Capitalism, for example, makes it possible for a person to become wealthy serving your fellow man. Other systems, such as socialism, rely on government force to achieve their ends. Capitalism leaves individuals to their own devices. It encourages competition and helps ensure that the best and brightest are rewarded, and has helped the U.S. become the most wealthy nation in human history. Problems with education, the environment, and healthcare (and numerous other problems) could be addressed far more effectively by allowing more capitalism and free market forces to do their work, and less government intervention.

In this regard, some might call me a Constitutional libertarian. I am not what some would call a purist conservative. I do not an immigration restrictionist; I think that immigration is generally good for the economy, and thus favor increasing current levels (although I do recognize the need for greater immigration security and favor increased border patrols as well as an orderly guest worker program). Studies by restrictionist groups usually cite the strain immigration places on the welfare state as reasons to oppose immigration, but these studies always fail to get at the real problem - the welfare state itself. Most objections to immigration can be traced directly to socialism. Curtail socialism and most problems with immigration evaporate.

I am also generally not a social conservative. When it comes to abortion I am pro-life, but beyond that I think social conservatives error in their desire to limit individual liberty. The mythical “homosexual agenda” is little more than an opportunity for demagoguery among politicians. I am sympathetic to social conservatives in many ways however; I think that stronger families are good and traditional ideals concerning morality and faith are positives for society. I just feel that imposing them at the barrel of a gun defeats their purposes. In short, social conservatism is a very valuable personal philosophy for living one’s own life (and one which I try to live my life based upon), but it is not a good governing philosophy.

So far I may sound libertarian, but on foreign policy I tend to side more with the neoconservatives (although not completely; I am not lusting for war with Iran, for example). I believe that radical Islam poses a very real and serious threat and needs to be confronted. I understand the value of multilateralism and think that we should work with as many allies as possible, but don’t think they should hold veto power over our interests (although, a minor criticism is that I think more could have been done in the past few years to convince other nations to join us). For this reason, I favor a strong military as it is one of the legitimate roles of the federal government.

Ultimately, conservatism for me is all about the role of government. A small federal government that provides for the basic security of its citizens while allowing matters that can be resolved by the free market to be resolved in such a manner is a government that I could respect.

Elsewhere, A.C. Kleinheider, Clark Stooksbury, and Mark Rose offer their definitions

“[T]he quickest path to anarchism may be understanding the fundamental idea that the desire for power is the best disqualification for holding it.” - Jon

They aren’t the same, and Dr. Walter Williams tells us why:

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” That’s another way of saying that one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.

Liberal bloggers are targeting a moderate Democrat:

The Democratic majority was only three weeks old, but by Jan. 26, the grass-roots and Net-roots activists of the party’s left wing had already settled on their new enemy: Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), the outspoken chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Progressive blogs — including two new ones, Ellen Tauscher Weekly and Dump Ellen Tauscher — were bashing her as a traitor to her party. A new liberal political action committee had just named her its “Worst Offender.” And in Tauscher’s East Bay district office that day in January, eight MoveOn.org activists were accusing her of helping President Bush send more troops to Iraq.

The demand for ideological purity is a common theme in the blogosophere, particularly the more angry blogs. It seems that politicians cannot be forgiven for deviating from party positions, even when they come from areas supremely opposed to said positions (i.e. pro-choice Republicans in California or anti-gun control Democrats in West Virginia). The drive to push parties in a certain direction is undeniable.

However, it does not always have the intended effect. Pushing politicians too far to one extreme may lead to them being defeated by the opposition party in the next election. Having more conservative or liberal candidates challenge them in the primary can have the same effect. Surely, there still has to be some room for pragmatism in politics.

This is particularly true for the Republicans. If they ever want to regain the majority, they must become the Big Tent Party again, without abandoning conservatism. This will be a challenge to be sure, but it can be done. For the good of the country, it must.

UPDATE: This post is taking part in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

John Fund has an interesting column in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Scores of books have been written on the role of communists and socialists in the U.S., dour chronicles of welcome failure. But very few writers have devoted much attention to the role of libertarians, a more appealing and optimistic group of thinkers, political activists and ordinary citizens who believe that respect for the individual and the spontaneous order of market forces are the key to progress and social well-being.

The neglect is strange, given how much libertarians and their limited-government logic have shaped the culture and economy of the U.S. The ideas of John Locke and David Hume animated the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Libertarian principles kept what we think of as “big government” in check for much of the 19th century and well into the 20th, despite tariffs and war. The federal income tax officially arrived, in permanent form, as late as 1913. Coolidge and his Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, took a famously minimalist approach to governing. Of course, we now live in a post-FDR age, with government programs everywhere. Still, the libertarian impulse is part of our political culture. “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” Ronald Reagan declared.

The GOP needs to reconnect with libertarians as soon as possible.

Sean Braisted points to HB0246, a bill that has been proposed in the Tennessee legislature that would require Tennessee’s presidential electors to cast their votes for the candidate who received the most popular votes. This would only take effect when enough states to represent a majority of the electoral votes sign on.

Braisted supports the bill, arguing that the electoral college is “an archaic system which has out served it’s usefulness.” I have to disagree. The electoral college has its flaws, yes. But every system does. On the other hand, the electoral college has served us for over 200 years. We know how it works, and we know what its disadvantages are. If we scrap it, we don’t know what the disadvantages of our new system will be. We can try to guess, but change always brings unintended consequences. If our current system ain’t broke (or, at least not very much so), why fix it?

Adopting a popular vote will only give power to the large states at the expense of the small states. Why is a candidate going to court 200,000 votes in West Virginia when he can get more than than for the same amount of work in New York City? Who’s going to bother with Tennessee when far more votes can be won in Chicago? Who cares about Colorado when there’s Los Angeles? If we want states to maintain any power, adopting popular vote for president is not the way to do it.

Popular vote is certainly more democratic, but America is not a pure democracy. It never was, and never should be.

UPDATE: This post is taking part in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Arnold Kling asks, why be a conservative libertarian?. He makes a solid case for the continued alliance between libertarians and the GOP, which I largely agree with. It’s a shame that the Republicans have moved so far away from their limited government roots. Instead, they have embraced a host of social conservative issues that really do nothing for me or other liberty-minded individuals.

Still, if there was a bright spot in the 2006 elections, it is that the status quo was repudiated. The Republicans behaved very much like Democrats, with their big spending ways and their corruption. Instead of working to advance the cause of liberty, they thought they could just demagogue the masses with issues like gay marriage and immigration. This cynical strategy failed miserably for them.

So what now? Well, the two front-runner for the GOP nomination - John McCain and Rudy Giuliani - are much more laissez-faire on social issues. Mitt Romney is faking social conservatism, but he also hardly fits the mold. The only candidates emphasizing the tactics of ‘06 are Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, and neither of these men stand much of a chance at securing the nomination.

On the other hand, the GOP hasn’t completely returned to its roots. Giuliani is far from perfect on second amendment issues. McCain isn’t exactly a fiscal conservative, with his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and his record on the first and second amendments is far from spotless. Romney is, quite frankly, a big government liberal when it comes to healthcare (although not as much as Hillary Clinton). So the prospects for libertarian-leaning conservatives are mixed at best.

Even so, the early successes of candidates like Rudy Giuliani suggests the GOP might move away from demagoguery and embrace a more liberty-oriented approach in the 2008 elections (although Rudy needs to tweak his second amendment position). If they do so, it will pay off dividends for them, and for us.

Via Instapundit

UPDATE: This post is taking part in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Dave Oatney has a great post on the 17th amendment, the one that allows for the direct election of U.S. Senators:

In choosing to popularly elect Senators, we have perverted this intention of the framers. We have turned the Senate into a virtual carbon copy of the House, with the only difference being that there are two Senators for each State, except that Senators can filibuster legislation. Far worse, perhaps, is the reality that Senators today are virtually free from State oversight. The recall process, while legally possible, is in reality much more difficult in most States than it would have been for a State legislator to recall a Senator.

The most devastating side-effect of the popular election of federal Senators is that the importance of State legislatures and State government has been greatly diminished in the eyes of Joe Sixpack on the street. There are many voters who only vote in a Presidential election year and may vote for a Senator in that year. Many others do vote in all federal and State elections, but when they complain about the problems with government, they often blame whoever is in power in Washington for the problem when often part (and often all) of the blame may lay in Nashville. If Senators were chosen by the State General Assembly, elections for those Houses would suddenly become extremely important in the eyes of many voters. Who is selected for a federal Senate seat may be determined by who controls the State legislature-and accounts of elections in many States during the period of legislative Senate selection bears this out.

People would likely take a far greater interest in who their State Representative and Senator are, what those people’s positions are on the issues that affect voters’ lives, and of course who their man or woman is for the U.S. Senate. That doesn’t diminish democracy-it enhances it at a State and local level-it localizes the federal government.

I couldn’t agree more. America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Now, that doesn’t mean that democracy is bad in moderation, but pure democracy is disfunctional. We need a balance to allow for majority rule, as well as protect the rights of minority factions. The founders would never have supported the 17th Amendment.

Via ACK.