How About That Commitment To Mediocrity

by Smitty

Update: crossed out a word, added a couple to the first sentence of the second para to avoid a friendly fire incident.

Insty links spaceflightnow.com discussing the possible abandonment of the International Space Station. The Russkies are having lift problems, which puts them ahead of the U.S., which currently ain’t got no sack whatsoever.

This is why I’m not sure it’s good not to be purely libertarian on the topic of space. I don’t know what the libertarian argument in favor of a space program is. As a conservative, one can ask if, unlike ObamaCare, space flight can be argued as a federal task. Space actually has significant national security impacts, and falls neatly under the federal task to provide such.

And have a space program we should. Its one of those national inspiration things that are cool, without explicitely making other countries look bad. We all benefit from the technology trickle-down, like the integrated circuit for the Apollo program.

Instead of pushing the edge, we get ObamaCare. Managing individual health is not a federal Constitutional task, irrespective of the mental gymnastics of the lawyers and judges. Beside being wrongheaded, and wasteful, socialist programs like ObamaCare insidiously divert resources from inspirational programs like space flight, and pour them down a mediocre money hole of health care. Instead of motivational pictures of the stars-and-stripes on the moon, we get a pallet of generic cough syrup that does little but provide jobs to some paper-pushers. Certainly doesn’t improve anyone’s existence.

Set low goals; fail to meet them. Thanks for nothing, Progressives.

Why Does Conservative Light Suck At Supporting Lefty Darkness?

by Smitty

Look no further than Salon for your daily dose o’ dreck. “Why won’t America embrace the left?” moans Mandy Van Deven, whose name appears just above a picture that answers the mail on why Americans cannot abide propaganda-peddling putzes of the Lefty variety.

The eloquent, conservative, Baptist, Republican image of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. placed on the left of a triptych with Michael Moore and FDR? Really? You think that Dr. King would look at the horror of debt and aborted children wrought by the Left in the name of Progress and not join the nearest Tea Party in his indignation?

You think that by co-opting the image of King you can airbrush history, because Americans have not caught on to the the Left’s recreational dishonesty? You’re sadly mistaken, Mandy. Successful propaganda, like a magic show, is predicated upon a willing audience. Apparently there is a Michael Kazin, who does something to history at Georgtown University (some might call it teaching), and has dropped by Salon for an interview. Mandy introduces her topic:

What has the left really accomplished over the past two centuries? FDR’s New Deal remains one of the great American success stories. In the ’60s, leftist politics created a massive countercultural movement — and sexual and feminist revolutions. The civil rights movement transformed both American society and the American soul. But, if you compare the accomplishments of the American left to those of other parts of the world, like Western Europe, its record is remarkably dismal, with a surprising lack of real political and social impact.

At least, that’s the main takeaway from “American Dreamers,” a new book by Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University, which covers nearly 200 years of struggle for civil rights, sexual equality and radical rebellion. His book explores the way the national conversation has been changed by union organizers, gay rights activists and feminists. He also writes about how their techniques have now been adopted by the Tea Party movement. From Michael Moore to “Wall-E,” he argues that, although the left has been successful at transforming American culture, when it comes to practical change, it’s been woefully unsuccessful.

What has the left really accomplished over the past two centuries? FDR’s New Deal remains one of the great American success stories.
Anyone who’s read Amity Shlaes knows that the FDR’s New Deal, even if you blow by the anti-Constitutional rejection of limited government that it embodied, has proven an economic disaster over the last 75-ish years. So Mandy is either simple, or a propaganda monger.
In the ’60s, leftist politics created a massive countercultural movement — and sexual and feminist revolutions. The civil rights movement transformed both American society and the American soul.
I’m about halfway through the latest Ann Coulter, Demonic and she recounts in much detail just how cool the Weathermen, the campus loonies, et al. were.

. . .covers nearly 200 years of struggle for civil rights, sexual equality and radical rebellion. His book explores the way the national conversation has been changed by union organizers, gay rights activists and feminists. He also writes about how their techniques have now been adopted by the Tea Party movement.
Kazin doesn’t seem too interested in the struggle for liberty, which is the heart of American Exceptionalism, and predates all of the union/gay/feminist twaddle. If we have liberty, all else follows. It is the sheer genius of the Left to take the teleological point of America, liberty, and obscure it with so much chrome and tailfin (“inter-species economic reproductive voting justice”) that no one can quite figure out what the Left is on about anymore. However, if Noam Chomsky says it, the muddle will be served with erudite-sounding faux authority.

Screw your nonsense, Kazin: the Tea Parties are about burning through your intellectual fog, not adding to it.

I’m going to stop after the first question, for reasons of time. However, I trust other bloggers can get on the fisk train and help out.

In the book, you argue that the left has been very successful at changing American culture — but not at making real economic or political change. Why?

It’s easier to get people to think about things differently than it is to construct institutions that alter the basic building blocks of society. When leftists talk about having a vision of how things might be different, they attract an audience and create a new way of perceiving things. It’s a different issue altogether to go up against entrenched structures of wealth and political power. There are few obstacles to talking differently, singing different kinds of songs, or making a different kind of art, but it takes a sustained movement of millions of people to really change the structures, and that is much harder to organize. Also, most Americans accept the basic ground rules of capitalist society. The ideas are that if you work hard you can get ahead and that it’s better to be self-employed than employed by the people. They believe that the basics of a capitalist society are just or can be made just with small alterations. Americans want capitalism to work well for everybody, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms since capitalism is about people competing with each other to get ahead, and everyone’s not going to be able to do well at the same time. That’s simply not possible.

. . .construct institutions that alter the basic building blocks of society.
First, identify the problem you think you’re about solving. There are few more painful people in life than those who’ve fallen in love with change for change’s sake. They’re either stupid, diabolical, or a fine blend of both.

. . .vision of how things might be different. . .
There is nothing new under the sun, twerp. Among the very old things one can find are pixie dust peddlers, in which ignoble line you stand. Your ‘different’ future boils down to feudalism, and we don’t want it.

. . .it takes a sustained movement of millions of people to really change the structures, and that is much harder to organize. . .
Iron fist, velvet glove.

Americans want capitalism to work well for everybody, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms since capitalism is about people competing with each other to get ahead, and everyone’s not going to be able to do well at the same time. That’s simply not possible.
It really depends on your definition of ‘ahead’, doesn’t it? By the one-dimensional metric of money, you can bin people easily into haves and have-nots, the better to incite the less reflective into class warfare, no? Your attention is drawn to Bill Whittle for any number of excellent rebuttals.

The Progressive Left is withering under the weight of conservative dialogue in the information age. The more the American people talk to each other, the more they realize the Left are nothing but theives, albeit well-dressed. They want to steal our liberty and replace it with lame substitutes.

(via Memeorandum)

Is The GOP Hopelessly Nixonian?

by Smitty

Insty links to Bret Jacobson in Forbes. Jacobson starts with the obvious JFK/Nixon debate point, enumerates the various major new media channels, and concludes:

So successful campaigns using digital tools well should always be congratulated, sometimes emulated (never duplicated), and always topped. Showing up is a great first step. Then it’s time to understand how to win in an emerging medium.

I don’t think that the GOP’s Nixonian problem has to do with a Luddite view of technology. The wrecking of George Allen in 2006 and the ludicrous $ haul of BHO in 2008 are two searing examples among thousands of why technology mastery goes without saying.

The view of Nixon’s character, as seen in Frost/Nixon suggests another parallel between the GOP gestalt and Nixon; that of the Ruling Class Overlord confronted with the hoi polloi. The elder statesman is too burdened with his weighty matters of state to condescend to explain himself to a commoner. But, as with the JFK/Nixon debate issue, this is superficial.

The problem is not the GOP inside the beltway looking out to the lumpen proletariat. Rather, the American citizens looking into the beltway having trouble telling apart the GOP and Democrat ends of the Ruling Class. In a twisted way, the Democrats are more forthright: they explicitly believe that there are no problems, only government solutions. No bones about it. No faux capitalist bleating, and then another bureaucracy (TSA) or ream of legislation up the stern tube.

Now, I understand that all the GOP candidates, in contrast to the Democrat one, have got to be moderate for a few reasons:

  • The Independent third of the electorate decides who gets control.
  • People will cheerfully ride the economic bus they know off a cliff rather than consider things like eliminating the Federal Reserve, with the attendant uncertainty about who will pick our pockets and shower them with economic ruin, if not Bernanke.
  • Nobody wants to upset the rice bowls. The amazingly torpid homo bureaucratus who works within the beltway can become agitated, and release a storm of PowerPoint slides, if his meeting room habitat is disturbed. Candidates are wise to take a mellow tack, and promise spending cuts, but no staffing cuts.

That’s all campaigning, which is a different beast than holding office, unless your name sounds similar to origami.

Which is the crux of the matter for the GOP. Doing the right, proper, conservative, common-sense thing involves a refudiation of their entire Ruling Class approach for the last century. It’s one thing for a lone drunk to go cold turkey, but sobering an entire political party is like trying to get Jimmy Carter not to be a milquetoast: easier said than dried.

Answering the question posed in the title, the GOP is hopelessly Nixonian by nature. It is also going to have as much change beaten into it as necessary by the Tea Party to overcome the hopeless part. The Radtke/Allen kerfuffle is a case in point; look for further entertainment as the primary season unfolds, Virginians.

Spitzer: I Thought You Said ‘Buy-Sexual’

by Smitty

Althouse links another soft-core porn piece disguised as news at the Gray, Room-temperature Lady. Not that I have the slightest interest in the topic, mind you: merely an opportunity to ridicule the behavior of the un-repentant Client #9.

The NYT doesn’t understand that Rule 5 should be a positive, fruitful appreciation of the beauty of Creation, and not an exhaustive combing of every cranny in the carnal canal.

That Lefty Cartoon World

by Smitty

Rasmussen hovers around 1 in 5 Americans strongly approving of BHO’s performance. Apropos nothing, I was on Wikipedia, looking up Hong Kong Phooey, and discovered this bit of insight:

A running gag is that Hong Kong Phooey is such a respected hero that when his incompetence causes him to crash into, harm, or otherwise inconvenience a civilian, the passerby feels honored as opposed to annoyed or embarrassed, such as when he drove the Phooeymobile through wet cement, splattering the workers, who responded that it was an honor to have a whole day’s work ruined by “the great Hong Kong Phooey.”

Does the Left somehow wallow in its moral, mental, and material deningration at the hands of BHO? Ponder that to the tune of Sublime:

“Look, That Rabbit’s Got A Vicious Streak A Mile Wide!”

by Smitty

via HotAir, Kass plays the Killer Right Wing Extremist Military Veteran Christianist Tenther Commando Raaaaacist Bunny card:

Anyone who thinks Obama is safe from a rabbit attack has forgotten what happened to President Jimmy Carter In 1979. Carter was attacked by a swimming rabbit, and the subsequent “Killer Rabbit” stories helped destroy his presidency. It led to the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in a landslide and an unprecedented economic revival.

There are eerie similarities. Like Obama, Carter was at that point where he was constantly viewed as weak and ineffectual. His fellow Democrats had lost patience with him. Liberal writers who once fawned on him had turned against him.

The whole scene has been visualized at Political Clown Parade, for your delectation. Mwahahahaha.

Bonus points for identifying title reference.

Can Conservatives Use This Thatcher Propaganda Flick As Mulch?

by Smitty

Gateway Pundit quotes the Daily Mail:

The film is littered with inaccuracies and fabrications concerning the Falklands War, the bombing of Brighton’s Grand Hotel in 1984 and the murder of Lady Thatcher’s friend, Tory MP Airey Neave, at the Commons in 1979.

Responding to this propaganda hit piece is actually a gold mine, when you think about it. I forsee a fine project for conservative bloggers, involving chopping this atrocious flick into tiny, Fair Use segements.

Then, explain precisely where the film team screwed up, and what the historical facts say.

You would:

  1. chide these propaganda mongers,
  2. celebrate the most important British leader since Churchill,
  3. educate people on important historical t0pics,
  4. send a message to other crap peddlers that future nonsense shall not go unanswered.

Parphrasing Rahm,

You never want a serious Leftist propaganda strike go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to educate people on what a craven pack of knuckle draggers are, with facts, that you could not do before.