Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary

What Is Worth Conserving?

7 Comments

Some thoughts on conservatism, and American conservatism in particular.

To be sure, temperamental or philosophical conservatives often want to conserve other things, too, be it in the realm of culture or sports or religion. But politically speaking, conservatism is only a partial philosophy of life. Indeed, the American Revolution — unlike the French Revolution — introduced the idea that the state has no business providing or enforcing a full philosophy of life for its citizens (as opposed to subjects). It was an anti-totalitarian revolution because it held that men should be free to chart their own course in life, individually or via local communities, so long as our actions do not violate the rights of others or run afoul of a few reasonable laws truly necessary for the common good.

That was a radical idea. It remains a radical idea. It is by no means wholly owned by the American Right. But the American Right is its greatest defender, at least insofar as the American Right continues to defend the idea of limited government represented by the founding. As I’ve said before, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but an American conservatism that doesn’t seek to conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving.

The notion that “conservatives” just like to conserve stuff in general is one of the reasons that much of American political debate is so…idiotic. And why the one-dimensional “left/right” notions are so mindlessly simplistic. In fact, it could be (and has been) argued that, in many ways, it is the “liberals” and “progressives” who are conservative. Their notions of the state ruling the individual are as old as agriculture.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jonah also says that the modern-day tea partiers aren’t revolutionaries — they’re restorationists.

Political Commentary, Science And Society

“Settled Science”

2 Comments

Discover has an interview with Judith Curry, who has been one of the few people in the climate “science” community behaving with any integrity:

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?

Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda—Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that—so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.

But don’t say there’s confirmation bias.

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Time To End The Bowing

29 Comments

Reflections on the disastrous foreign policy of this administration:

Khadafy can be forgiven, but there are transgressions that can’t. One such sin was perpetrated by Israel after the nation’s decision to allow a new housing project to be built in Jerusalem.

The White House became so agitated with the new housing project — and the ill-advised timing of the announcement, which came during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit — that the casual onlooker might have been led to believe the Jerusalem neighborhood in question was part of some unfinished negotiation with Palestinians, or even that it was one of those “settlements.” It was neither.

Still, according to The Jerusalem Post, Hillary Clinton telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who, along with many other Israeli officials, apologized for the poor timing of the project’s announcement — to “berate,” “rebuke,” “warn” and “condemn” Israel. White House senior adviser David Axelrod used NBC’s “Meet the Press” to call the incident an “affront,” an “insult” and “very, very destructive.”

As the administration was manufacturing this anger, the Palestinian Authority was preparing the newly minted Dalal Mughrabi square. You know, just a place for folks to gather and commemorate the 32nd anniversary of 1978’s Coastal Road Massacre, in which 37 Israelis — 13 of them children — were murdered in a bus hijacking.

An American named Gail Rubin, who happened to be snapping some nature pictures in the area, was also gunned down.

No worries. No affront taken. That’s not “very, very destructive” to the process. We are above the fray. Above frivolous notions of “allies” or “friends.” History only matters when our enemies deem it important. We don’t want to tweak the fragile mood of the Arab street.

They had better start to worry about the American street. Especially if they continue to push health-care deform on us.

[Update a while later]

Some related thoughts from Michael Ledeen:

As he pushes Israel away from the American embrace, Obama has undertaken to make peace with Iran, whose genocidal hatred of America and Israel and bloody war against both requires a very different policy. Sensible Middle East experts understand that there cannot be peace between Israel and the Arabs as long as Iran exercises a decisive influence over the key terrorist organizations. But Obama has willfully ignored this connection in designing his Mideast plans.

You can’t even begin to address the Arab-Israeli thing until and unless you’ve defeated Iran.

Unfortunately, they don’t believe in winning wars, only in “ending” them.

Education, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

How Ignorant Are Journalists?

17 Comments

This ignorant.

As is pointed out in comments, it’s probably partly a generational thing. The generation that fought that war is dying and almost gone. But it’s also a consequence of how awful the teaching of history is in the public school system and universities.

And these are the people who are supposed to be informing the rest of us? No wonder Obama was elected.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Destroying A Brand

12 Comments

If this rumor is true, ABC will have completed the destruction of a respected Sunday-morning news show that started with the late great David Brinkley:

If Amanpour does accept, the long-running Sunday show could he shaken up, according to the report.

Amanpour said she wants to make “This Week” more about foreign affairs and less focused on domestic American politics. If she takes the job, her desire is to do a number of shows each year outside the country. If she takes the post, sources say this would be a complete remaking on the show, a program much more focused on international affairs. What’s more, Amanpour is telling colleagues that she does not wish to move to Washington, D.C., that she’d prefer to remain in New York and travel for the job should she decide to take it.

Given that Amanpour’s career has focused more on international news than Beltway politics, it makes sense that there could be format changes that play upon her strengths.

Since Brinkley’s retirement, it’s been all downhill, starting with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, then Stephanopolous. They’ve been trying out a few others since the latter left, including Jake Tapper, who (in my opinion) would have reelevated it significantly. If Amanpour takes over, I know I’ll never watch it again.