Publius

Good Post by Gil Troy

2009-02-15T19:12:00.002-05:00

Gil Troy: Is Obamania Stopping Us From Questioning Obama’s Competence?

John P. Diggins, 1936-2009

2009-02-09T16:11:00.004-05:00

New York Times obituary.

Just A Thought

2009-02-05T16:48:00.000-05:00

Joe Biden said it was Patriotic to pay taxes....

This is Insane!!!

2009-01-19T23:20:00.005-05:00

From ABC News:

"Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives"

"The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama ."

"The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies."

"It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill. "

"The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

"And then there is the party bill..."

full article.

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is...Obama"

2009-01-18T13:44:00.011-05:00

This is from Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard:

"Barack Obama is the apostle of hope. But he also arouses the flipside of hope--fear. And while the fear he stirs may turn out to be unfounded, it's not irrational. People don't know who Obama really is or where his ideological center of gravity rests, to the extent it rests anywhere. He was a liberal in the Senate and the campaign, a centrist in the transition, and who knows what he'll be as president. He's elusive."

"I count four separate fears. Whether he's a crypto-Marxist is not one of them. Neither is the absurd fear that he's secretly a Muslim, even a closet jihadist. Nor is the groundless claim Obama was actually born outside the United States and isn't really an American citizen. Forget all those. They're nonstarters."

"He doesn't know what he's talking about. This is a legitimate fear. Obama throws around numbers like confetti. In the campaign, he said he would create 1 million jobs. After the election, he put out a plan he said would produce up to 3 million jobs. Then in a radio address on January 10, he said the number could reach 4.1 million and said 500,000 would be jobs in the alternative energy field, 200,000 in health care. Does he really believe he can achieve this? The fear is that he might."

full article.

Ron Paul is Right Again

2009-01-16T21:25:00.003-05:00

Eric Foner on "Our Lincoln"

2009-01-09T11:26:00.017-05:00

This is from The Nation:

"Abraham Lincoln has always provided a lens through which Americans examine themselves. He has been described as a consummate moralist and a shrewd political operator, a lifelong foe of slavery and an inveterate racist. Politicians from conservatives to communists, civil rights activists to segregationists, have claimed him as their own. With the approach of the bicentennial of his birth, the past few years have seen an outpouring of books on Lincoln of every size, shape and description. His psychology, marriage, law career, political practices, racial attitudes and every one of his major speeches have been subjected to minute examination."

"Lincoln is important to us not because of his melancholia or how he chose his cabinet but because of his role in the vast human drama of emancipation and what his life tells us about slavery's enduring legacy. The Nation, founded by veterans of the struggle for abolition three months after Lincoln's death, dedicated itself to completing the unfinished task of making the former slaves equal citizens. It soon abandoned this goal, but in the twentieth century again took up the banner of racial justice. Who is our Lincoln?"

"In the wake of the 2008 election and on the eve of an inaugural address with "a new birth of freedom," a phrase borrowed from the Gettysburg Address, as its theme, the Lincoln we should remember is the politician whose greatness lay in his capacity for growth. Much of that growth stemmed from his complex relationship with the radicals of his day, black and white abolitionists who fought against overwhelming odds to bring the moral issue of slavery to the forefront of national life."

full article.

Abe on Family Guy

2009-01-09T10:13:00.003-05:00

Annette Gordon-Reed, "The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family"

2009-01-09T10:06:00.004-05:00

Bernard Lewis on Middle East Peace

2009-01-06T12:31:00.010-05:00

This is from Bloomberg.com:

"The current fighting in the Gaza Strip raises again, in an acute but familiar form, the agonizing question: What kind of accommodation is possible, if ever, between Israel and the Arabs?"

"For a long time it was generally assumed, in the region and elsewhere, that peace was impossible, and that the Arabs’ struggle against Israel would continue until they achieved their aim of destroying the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel could survive and even serve a useful purpose as the one licensed grievance in the various Arab dictatorships, providing a relatively harmless outlet for resentment and anger that might otherwise be directed inward. In this phase, the only peace that could be expected was the peace of the grave."

"The more recent history of the Middle East shows a significant change and, notably, two possible paths toward peace. One of them is limited and therefore more feasible; the other is comprehensive and therefore remote and problematic."

full article.

Ralph Peters on Israel and Hamas

2008-12-29T18:09:00.010-05:00

Writing in the New York Post, Ralph Peters argued that Israel's very existence is on the line in this struggle against Hamas. Peters wrote:

"Dead Jews aren't news, but killing terrorists outrages global activists. On Saturday, Israel struck back powerfully against its tormentors. Now Israel's the villain. Again."

"How long will it be until the UN General Assembly passes a resolution creating an international Holocaust Appreciation Day? "

"Israel's airstrikes against confirmed Hamas terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip were overdue, discriminating and skillful. So far, this retaliatory campaign has been a superb example of how to employ postmodern airpower."

"Instead of bombing empty buildings in the dead of night in the hope of convincing bloodthirsty monsters to become peace-loving floral arrangers - the US Air Force version of "Shock and Awe" - the Israeli Defense Force aimed to kill terrorists."

full article.

Hamas Needs To Be Defeated

2008-12-29T17:38:00.011-05:00

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi made the argument that in order for the peace process to continue and maybe be succesful Hamas must be defeated. They wrote:

"A quarter century has passed since Israel last claimed to go to war in the name of peace."

""Operation Peace for Galilee" -- Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon -- failed to convince the international public and even many Israelis that its goal was to promote reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. In fact, the war had precisely the opposite results, preparing the way for Yasser Arafat's disastrous return to the West Bank and Gaza, and for Hezbollah's ultimate domination of Lebanon. And yet, Israel's current operation in Gaza is essential for creating the conditions that could eventually lead to a two-state solution."

"Over the past two decades, a majority of Israelis have shifted from adamant opposition to Palestinian statehood to acknowledging the need for such a state. This transformation represented a historic victory for the Israeli left, which has long advocated Palestinian self-determination. The left's victory, though, remained largely theoretical: The right won the practical argument that no amount of concessions would grant international legitimacy to Israel's right to defend itself."

"That was the unavoidable lesson of the failure of the Oslo peace process, which ended in the fall of 2000 with Israel's acceptance of President Bill Clinton's proposal for near-total withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the territories. The Palestinians responded with five years of terror."

full article.

Justin Townes Earle Singing About The Civil War

2008-12-26T22:38:00.010-05:00

As I have mentioned in a previous post I have been listening to my iPod quite a bite lately. For the past two days I have been listened to Justin Townes Earle's debut album The Good Life, which is just amazing. One of the stand outs on this album is the song "Lone Pine Hill" which is song from the perspective of a confederate soldier. Earle, in an interview, claimed that he has spent much time reading about the Civil War and that this has inspired many of his songs. In this song, Earle's soldier exclaims: "I've never known a man who has ever owned another and I never owned nothing of my own, and after four long years I just can't tell you what the hell I've been fighting for" (If these lyrics are inaccurate please let me know)

Huffington is an Idiot!!

2008-12-26T16:31:00.010-05:00

This is David Harsanyi's response to an idiotic article by Arianna Huffington:

"Celebrated progressive doyenne Arianna Huffington recently penned a brilliantly absurd piece, titled "Laissez-Faire Capitalism Should Be as Dead as Soviet Communism.""

"Huffington argues, in effect, that communism and "laissez-faire" (minimal-intervention) capitalism are equivalent ideological extremes."

"Sure, one of these philosophies spurred the murder and misery of hundreds of millions worldwide; the other promotes liberty, innovation and welcomes foreigners to lounge around in expansive mansions paid for by their former oil baron husbands."

"So we can agree; there is no such thing as a flawless ideology."

"Yet this serious, but temporary, recession -- and we've had at least four of them since 1980 -- is, evidently, the ironclad justification "to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is.""

"When a pundit informs you that a point is "inarguable," one instantaneously recognizes that the point is, in fact, remarkably arguable. Hordes of economists quarrel about this very idea each and every day. So the disaster narrative offered by Huffington and fellow panic-mongers, you can imagine, is riddled with underlying problems."

full article.

The Fort Dix Five and Bill Ayers

2008-12-26T16:08:00.008-05:00

This is an interesting post from Ron Radosh on his blog a Pajamas Media. Radosh wrote:

"What is the difference between the five Muslim immigrants convicted in a Federal court in Camden, New Jersey on Monday, and Bill Ayers and his comrades in the Weather Underground?"

"The answer: not much, except for the outcome. The men were convicted for conspiring to kill American soldiers in Fort Dix. They had taken concrete steps to train and arm themselves. The government had taped conversations about their plans between them and FBI informants; propaganda videos, and proof of the purchase of machine guns. The jury was evidently not impressed with the defendants’ arguments that they were not serious, and had been coaxed into making incendiary arguments by the informants. If that was so, any sane juror realized, it would not explain why they actually purchased the weapons for the planned attack."

"In the case of the Weather Underground, as Bob Owens recounts on his blog today, the FBI had only one inside informant- Larry Grothwol. Like today’s informants, Grothwol had first hand knowledge of terrorist plans of the communist cell, and of actual attacks they carried out. But the Bureau didn’t need this to find evidence- the Weathermen group did it themselves when their home made bomb went off prematurely, killing only themselves."

full post.

The question one asks after reading this is why was this man and his comrades never prosecuted by the federal government? What is even more baffleing is how during the election the media soft peddled this disgusting man's past. They portrayed him as merely a patriotic man who let himself get carried away. This man is truly a horrible individual.

Joshua Berman on "The Bible, Home Ownership, and the Housing Crisis"

2008-12-22T00:18:00.016-05:00

This is from the History News Network:

"In the wake of the mortgage crisis, a growing chorus of economists today questions the status of home ownership as the fulfillment of the American dream. An argument supporting home ownership is found – of all places – in the Hebrew Bible. Although usually read as part of a religious text, the Bible's economic prescriptions may be mined to recover the roadmaps by which past thinkers navigated, even if no longer fully applicable today."

"Economic commentators Paul Krugman and James Surowiecki argue that the American dream increasingly ends with a rude awakening. With the market value of houses falling, many Americans are now trapped in mortgages that exceed the value of their homes. And for many more, they argue, the hassles of buying and selling a home make it harder for underemployed home owners to move to where the jobs are."

"But consider the original context of a touchstone of American political culture, the biblical inscription on the Liberty Bell in Independence Hall in Philadelphia: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." Contrary to popular conception, the verse in question, Leviticus 25:10, addresses neither despotic rule nor slavery, but is an economic prescription. When read in the larger context of that biblical chapter it emerges as a call to ownership stability, part of an economic plan that was radical for its time."

"Elsewhere in the ancient Near East, land was held chiefly by the kings and by the temples. The Hebrew Bible, for the first time, sought to put the vast majority of landholdings into the hands of ordinary people. Land -- the means of production in an agrarian society -- was apportioned to extended kinship groups. The vision was that you never dwelt alone, but as part of a deeply intertwined social fabric of extended kin. If a landowner suffered crop failure, or illness, he could sell his land, but would then find himself alienated from his property with no means of getting back on his feet. The Bible's solution was that every fifty years property was restored to the original owners: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof, for the Jubilee year it will be for you, and each man shall return to his property and each man unto his kin." The "Liberty" is from debt, and the prescription is for stability of property ownership in the company of one's kin."

"The Bible sought to empower citizens by granting them equity. The distribution of lands was similar in spirit to the Homestead Act of 1863. Opening the Great Plains to mass settlement, nearly any person 21 years of age could acquire at virtually no cost a tract of 160 acres that would become his after five years of residence and farming. For 2 million new arrivals and other landless Americans, the Homestead Act was an opportunity to acquire assets and to bring equality of economic standing in line with equality before the law."

full article.

Welcome to the End (Beginning) of Political Dialogue [And Click the Link to Find Out Why]

2008-12-12T00:34:00.002-05:00

Post-Modernism. One of those pithy, esoteric philosophical terms that both mean nothing and everything simultaneously. Any good student of Post-Modernism (PoMo) will tell you that transformation of America’s epistemology is not complete (or if you are crazy enough, has already ended), but there is a clear distinction between Modernism and Post-Modernism. [Or Post-Post-Modernism…that’s right…Post-Post-Modernism, be afraid, be very afraid.]

Logistically, PoMo has meant many things for America, and the world as a whole. Greatly inspired by the philosophical movements of French Existentialism and Deconstruction, Post-Modernism embodies pluralism, tolerance, and individuality—to the extreme. In that sense, PoMo is very much a post-1960s world view. The “enlightened” masses have come to accept basic human rights as valuable, that civil rights and equality are necessary regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, and embraced the pluralistic “don’t-judge-me-unless-you-know-me-but-you’ll-never-know-me-so-forget-it” mentality of my (unfortunate) generation. [Some philosophers put it one generation back, for those who reached puberty in the 1980s.]

Here’s the big question, I guess: What does PoMo mean practically, and how will it affect me (if I even realize it exists)? I read one commentator who compared Modernism to Post-Modernism as one would compare Kennedy Space Center to a shopping mall. Modernism represents the collective will, the triumph of the human spirit, the progress and enlightenment of man. When President Kennedy proclaimed that we would send a man into space, it didn’t matter that Joe Six-Pack would not be the one to do it. It was his goal. It was his desire. He would support and uplift it as a symbol of the power of America and its spirit.

Conversely, PoMo lacks the collective will (or even the capacity) to unite behind a single idea. Every idea is valid, every pursuit worthy, every cause noble. Thus, Joe Six-Pack has no need to unite with his fellow Americans and shop at Wal-Mart, and drive a Chevy, or pursue the American Dream. Joe want’s to shop at Hollister, he wants to drive a Honda, and he wants to be left alone in his world of consumption. In PoMo, everyone can experience space—space in one’s individual conception of space.

PoMo is changing everything, one just has to look. PoMo has an emphasis on connection (though it remains disconnected). PoMo has and emphasis on the individual (though it feigns community). PoMo desires clarity and sincerity (though it is bogged down my meta-narratives). PoMo wants honest dialog (though everyone’s language is incomprehensible). PoMo desires change (though it is the afterthought of real change). PoMo promises a world of both/and (though it works under the past of either/or).

I will admit (and I’m kind of ashamed to admit it) that I fell in love with the idea of Post-Modernism. It was not about the promises of “community,” “sincerity,” or “individualism.” I was attracted to the pluralism of its politics. I don’t consider myself a Republican or Democrat. I hate the term “independent” and “undecided” is even worse (effing fence sitters). To be completely honest, I have some very hodge-podge political views. I support smaller government, but believe there is a need for government involvement in education and civil rights. I support the right to privacy, yet oppose gay marriage. I do not support abortion, but recognize its need to exist. I’m a free market capitalist who would support property redistribution if Americans understood and held a “collective” good. I believe that environmentalism is important, that poor people should be helped, that hungry people should be fed, that homeless people should be sheltered, that equality (social, political, economic) is desired; but I also believe in rugged individualism, social Darwinism, and traditional progressivism. Thus, PoMo was very attractive to me. It seemed to have a place for me politically. It could have been my home.

[I also struggled with much of the same issues in my personal faith. I am a Christian, but was looking for the middle. I though I had found it in PoMo.]

However, like a kid finding out for the first that Santa Clause is not real, I found out that PoMo and its movements were not what they appeared. After hours of contemplating Christian and political PoMo, longing for sincerity and truth, I discovered that the movements were a guise for political liberalism. The Emergent Church—the forefront of PoMo Christianity—preached moderation and middle-ground. However, when they released their causes and goals that they hoped to focus on for 2008, I finally understood PoMo in its true light. There document was a point-by-point reiteration of the liberal platform—from social justice, to abortion, to damn-near socialism.

I was heart broken.

But the pain gave me insight. Post-Modernism is the ultimate meta-narrative. Post-Modernism promises things it cannot deliver, in an effort to surpass and disguise its true intentions.

The Presidential Election of 2008 embodies Post-Modernism like no election has. First is the makeup of the candidates. There is Barack Obama who is calling for Hope and Change—meta-narrative themes if I’ve ever heard them—looking for more accountability and sincerity in government. It was not a reality based campaign; people were moved, at an almost spiritual level, to follow Obama. (The Right didn’t call him the “messiah” for nothing.”). Obama’s candidate surpassed the nominal level of everyday politics. Col. Powell called Obama a “transcendent” figure. Obama was not a person or a candidate. He was an idea. Never mind his experience. Never mind his thoughts or beliefs or relationships or affiliations. At the end of the day, Obama represents two things—Hope and Change.

However, the democrats were not the only party to evoke PoMo. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin used PoMo to attract voters. John McCain is a “maverick” who challenged his own party on sincerity, honesty, and openness. “Joe the Plumber” represents the ultimate meta-narrative. Yes, there is a Joe, yes he is a plumber, yes he is a conservative, and yes he is fearful of Obama. But that information had no bearing on the context of “Joe the Plumber.” He represented “Joe Six-Pack” (another awful meta-character) Americans. He became a verbal weapon used to bash opponents. Sarah Plain, and her small-town ethic, represented PoMo to the extreme. Almost all of her images were “meta” in nature. Pit bulls, hockey moms, lipstick, Joe Six-Pack, terrorists, small towns. PoMo removed there initial value and substituted instead other values, above their normal context.

What is the result?

Never before in the history of America, has there been an election where we knew less about the candidates, less about the issues, less about foreign policy, and more about Hope, Change, and a Plumber from the mid-west.

PoMo does not offer any clarity; it only blurs the issues into negligibility.

Worse yet, the feigning of sincerity attract those Americans who are looking for honesty in politics. Do you think it is coincidence that Obama invoked the methods of Lincoln and Regan in his political addresses? Where is the bipartisanship promised? Tax cuts or tax credits? Middle-class equality or social welfare? The language used to discuss policy has made sustentative debate impossible.

When Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, he invokes traditional conservative values. But these “tax cuts” are actually tax credits. His policies result in a net tax increase and more money back after taxes. But because the tax credits will make those increases (in some cases) negligible, he can claim them as tax cuts, despite the meaning of “tax cut.” Likewise, when Obama plans on “balancing the budget” and “pay-as-you-go,” they are polite ways of saying tax and spend (which in itself is loaded). How can Obama balance a budget but offer trillions (literally) in new spending?

The problem is the narrative has surpassed reality. And in a PoMo world, perception is reality. The meta-narrative complicates what is actually being said. It is much like doublethink and doublespeak in 1984—except real. When one word (like tax cut) means something to a majority of people, but can mean something different to other people, how can we understand the word “tax cut?” The political narrative no longer focuses on strong and fair tax policy, but the definition of even the word “tax cut.”

Aye, there’s the rub: In a PoMo world, language is individual amongst groups and individuals. To understand one another, we must speak each other’s language. Thus, people’s stories, their lives, their personal selves are necessary to understand one another. This explains the shift in art, literature, and film towards narrative type story-telling. It is emotionally driven; character development is key. Tricky plot lines are difficult to follow, but understanding the characters is key. Shows like Lost, Heroes, 24, etc. are popular because they are a series of little stories, about characters and centering on character development, while at the same time offering plot. PoMo explains the huge success and growth for TLC and Discovery Channel.

The biggest argument against Post-Modernism is that it rejects absolute truth. Although the philosophy does not directly state this, the logical conclusion of its pluralistic nature and view of “language” leads to that assumption. I though I could fight this view. Here is how:

If PoMo is represented by the various languages spoken by groups and individuals (no languages as in French and English, but nuance, sarcasm, idioms, inside jokes, etc.), and the only way to understand those languages is through narrative communication and involvement in a group or with an individual, then in theory, Post-Modernism should allow for a heightened need and desire for dialogue. PoMo, by its very nature should promote substantive dialogue—political, social, and religious, etc. PoMo however does not do that.

Post-Modernism, by blurring what language means, and by focusing more on the individual, while feigning community, completely obliterates the opportunity for dialogue. After all, we can never truly understand each other! So much for round tables! So much for diplomatic missions!

How the hell does Obama expect to talk to crazy fucking ARABS WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS IN A POSTMODERN WORLD? DAMNIT!

Now that that is out of my system, I would still like to offer a critique of Modernism & Post-Modernism.

Before I discovered Post-Modernism, I thought I was in the middle of the political spectrum, leaning mostly to the right. After my tryst with Post-Modernism, I’m confused. I am now in the middle of the middle?

There is certainly more to come, about why post-modernism makes everything worthless. I’ll write about it late. I’m too pissed off to continues.

The dialogue is a like, the meta narrative is empty, and lacks of absolutes only result in more separation and worthlessness.

Nat Turner's Rebellion

2008-12-11T22:18:00.002-05:00

I came across this on Civil Warriors.

Who Is To Blame?

2008-12-11T18:51:00.006-05:00

This Victor Davis Hanson article was published on NationReview.com:

"When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration, just pose four questions:"

"First, was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support? Second, were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations? Third, will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration? Four, have the media changed their position on the issue since the November election?"

"If the answer is yes to these questions, then the acrimony was probably about politics and style, not principle and substance."

"Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October 2001 by majorities in both parties — and was reauthorized in 2006. The original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the Carter administration in 1978."

"Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act — prompted by then-President Clinton’s warnings about Saddam’s dangerous weapons: “Some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.”"

full article.

The South, Race, and Rock 'n' Roll

2008-12-11T15:05:00.028-05:00

I have been listening to my iPod a lot lately. For some strange reason music helps me write and since I am in the midst of writing my graduate thesis my iPod has not left my side. Recently I have realized something that I haven't noticed in the past. During the late 1960s and early 1970s there were numerous songs recorded that dealt with the South and issues of race.

First, there is "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" by The Band. This song is about a white soldier, Virgil Caine, who served in the Confederate Army. In the song Caine claimed "Like my father before me, I will work the land, Like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand. He was just eighteen, proud and brave, But a Yankee laid him in his grave..." This song embraces the myth of the Lost Cause and makes no mention of slavery or slaves.

Then there is The Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar," which is about interracial sexual relations in the Slave South. Here is the song's opening verse: "Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields / Sold in a market down in new Orleans / Scarred old slaver knows he's doing alright/ Hear him whip the women, just around midnight / Brown sugar how come you taste so good?/ Ah, brown sugar just like a young girl should." I don't know why, but this song makes me think of Thomas Jefferson.

There is also the well known feud between Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd. Young's "Southern Man" was a scathing attack on the South's treatment of African Americans. This attack angered the members of Skynyrd, who responded with "Sweet Home Alabama."

A People's History of Sports?

2008-11-30T15:23:00.014-05:00

Dave Zirin's new book, A People's History of in the United States, looks very interesting. Zirin recently wrote about this book for the History News Network:

"There are those who insist that sports and politics don't belong in the same sentence, the same zip code, or the same universe."

"They mouth platitudes about how these two worlds must be hermetically sealed from one another, lest the dirty world of politics infect the sanctity of the playing field. Before the 2008 Olympics, International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said that "political factors" must be kept away from Beijing."

"USA basketball Mike Krzyzewski chimed in, "None of these athletes (has) a responsibility to be political. They have the responsibility to represent their country." The chief of the Canadian Olympic Committee, Dick Pound, also thundered to the Canada's Olympians, "If it is so tough for you that you can't bear not to say anything, then stay at home.""

"This is rank stupidity and stunning hypocricy. It's a lie. People can say all they want that sports and politics have nothing to do with one another, but as the saying goes, "you don't have to believe in gravity to fall out of an airplane.""

full article.

New C-SPAN Book on Lincoln

2008-11-23T22:24:00.007-05:00

From the website:

"To mark the February 2009 bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, C-SPAN's CEO Brian Lamb and co-president Susan Swain have opened the network's archives to create Abraham Lincoln. This book is an effort to chronicle the life and legacy of America's 16th president through the eyes of 56 of the country's leading Lincoln historians, journalists, and writers."

"Fascinating, little-known anecdotes about the president are brought to light in richly detailed essays drawn from C-SPAN interviews. Extras include 16 pages of color photos and four maps that detail where Abraham Lincoln lived, the location of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's Inaugural journey to Washington and the path his funeral train took when returning him to Springfield. A timeline of Abraham Lincoln's life, brief biographies of the 56 contributing authors, and Lincoln's most famous speeches are also included."

website.

The Myth of Lincoln's "Team of Rivals"

2008-11-21T12:29:00.008-05:00

Matthew Pinsker wrote this for the LA Times:

"People love Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on the Lincoln presidency, "Team of Rivals." More important, for this moment in American history, Barack Obama loves it. The book is certainly fun to read, but its claim that Abraham Lincoln revealed his "political genius" through the management of his wartime Cabinet deserves a harder look, especially now that it seems to be offering a template for the new administration."

""Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet," is the way Obama has summarized Goodwin's thesis, adding, "Whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis.""

"That's true enough, but the problem is, it didn't work that well for Lincoln. There were painful trade-offs with the "team of rivals" approach that are never fully addressed in the book, or by others that offer happy-sounding descriptions of the Lincoln presidency."

"Lincoln's decision to embrace former rivals, for instance, inevitably meant ignoring old friends -- a development they took badly. "We made Abe and, by God, we can unmake him," complained Chicago Tribune Managing Editor Joseph Medill in 1861. Especially during 1861 and 1862, the first two years of Lincoln's initially troubled administration, friends growled over his ingratitude as former rivals continued to play out their old political feuds."

Full article.

Taking a break....will be back soon.

2008-11-09T19:49:00.003-05:00

I apologize to the few readers of this blog about the light posting lately. I am taking a break for a week or so to finish writing my masters's thesis. I will start posting again shortly.

Change We Can Count On

2008-11-05T18:18:00.001-05:00

We must take an honest look at the reasons for Republican losses in the House, Senate, and Presidency. No flourish no dishonesty, no rhetoric, an honest, soul searching look at the state of the Party.

Is it true that the Republican brand is declining? Is it true that to succeeded, conservatism must be re-imagined, recreated, and reorganized? Is it true that this Democratic victory is a philosophical shift?

Republicanism is not in decline, its just momentarily unpopular do to Bush’s un-conservative policies and widespread unpopularity. Conservatism does not need to be remained—it is a timeless universal truth and traditional. This is not a philosophical shift, but a backlash. The whims of the demos, vacillating through campaign promise after campaign promise.

If conservatisms is not dying, as libs are so glad to say, what the hell is going on? Simply put:

The Right had pandered to special interest groups and the Left for too long; hurting its core principles, its moral base, and strength in the name of “bipartisan cooperation” and “working across the isle.” It is time to cut the shit!

Democrats talk a high and mighty game—bipartisan as they would like you to believe—but do they cross isles to transform their opinions. Is the Liberal-Conservative dialogue an actual dialogue, or a Liberal monologue in a Conservative tragedy? When have liberals ever crossed the isle to:

• Limit the availability and frequency of abortion
• Cut the national debt and reign in spending
• Cut pork barrel spending, line item expenditures, and fluff
• Taken an active role in ending corruption
• Minimized the size of government, the services offered
• Equalized taxation
• Promoted the growth of business
• Limited and redefined immigration

Don’t rack your brain too hard. The answer is obviously: NEVER! So I have to say one thing:

F***k them!

We will not apologize for being the “racist, bigoted, sexist, religious cooks”—WHICH WE ARE NOT! We will stop pandering to the Liberals who despite out best efforts to appear amiable and affable STILL HATE US! We will embrace and reiterate our core principals:

• Small government
• Less regulation (He that governs least, governs best)
• Economic growth
• Rugged individualism
• Socially conscious decisions
• Strict and original interpretation of the Constitution
• Less taxes
• Less services
• More local involvement
• More individual rights
• Stronger military

The angry Left succeeded in pandering to American voters. But it will be the angry Right that reclaims the nation with conservative values.

WE ARE NOT A WELFARE STATE! WE ARE NOT HELPLESS! AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! WE ARE UNIQUE AND EXCEPTIONAL!

*Welcome to Dissent*

Yes We Can--A New Role

2008-11-05T18:16:00.000-05:00

Having surveyed the damage done to Republicanism—both last night and over the past five years—a role in dissent seems the likely place for me, and if I may speak counterpart, and this blog. Having voted and subsequently lost, it is not my prerogative to make the next four to eight years miserable for the ruling party. If this was a coalition government, in parliamentary style, I can only predict that after four scathing yeas of opposition, a vote of no confidence would be cast and the tide of this new Liberal wave would be broken.

However, this is America, and we have no such luck. However, my initial message is to take heart. As opposition leaders and the dissenting minority, we are following in the footsteps of great men from as far back as 4000 BC. Here are just a few famous dissenters:

Moses against Pharaoh
Brutus against Caesar
Savonarola against Catholicism
Galileo against Catholicism
Martin Luther against Catholicism
Lord Bolingbroke against Walpole
The Founding Fathers against England
Jefferson against Adams
Calhoun against Clay
Radical Republicans against Johnson
Disraeli against Gladstone
Roosevelt against Wilson
Berkley against FDR
Churchill against Chamberlin (Post-WWI)
Churchill against Chamberlin (Post-WWII)
Goldwater against the Christian Right
The Christian Right against everything

And the list goes on…

So we join the ranks of dissent!

"Standing Athwart History, Yelling Stop."

2008-11-04T22:05:00.015-05:00

I have decided to kick off Publius's life as a voice dissent with a statement from one of the original Conservative/Libertarian dissidents. This was William F. Buckley's statement from the first issue of National Review from November 19, 1955. Buckley wrote:

"There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for NATIONAL REVIEW. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined."

"Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if NATIONAL REVIEW is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

"NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic."

""I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater," said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does." We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things."

"Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is a serious question of whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is a dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality of never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity."

"There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses — on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending. And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas — not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is — dare we say it? — as necessary to better living as Chemistry."

"We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for NATIONAL REVIEW. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism."

"After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over fifty men and women of small means invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives."

"Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town."

World F@cking Champions

2008-10-31T22:11:00.002-04:00

Studs Terkel Dies at 96

2008-10-31T19:38:00.012-04:00

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Studs Terkel turned the voice of average Americans into a font of history."

"The Pulitzer-Prize winning author, television pioneer, theatrical actor, long-time radio host, unrepentant leftie and friend of the little man, died peacefully at his home on the North Side of Chicago this afternoon."

"He was 96."

""He had a very full, eventful and sometimes tempestuous life ," said his son Dan. "It was very satisfactory""

"Studs — calling him "Mr. Terkel" always seemed overly formal — was a character. He liked to wear a red-checked shirt, a rumpled suit and had a stogie jammed in the side of his thick-lipped mouth. He enjoyed a martini well into his 90s."

"Though his dozen books were national best-sellers — Division Street America, and Working and The Good War — Studs was best known to many Chicagoans as an interviewer who hosted a talk show on radio station WFMT from 1952 to 1997."

full article.

Phillies Win The World Series!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-10-29T22:55:00.006-04:00

Ronald Radosh Has A Blog!!!

2008-10-29T09:16:00.004-04:00

I just found out that historian Ronald Radosh has a blog and it is a very good read. Check it out here.

Why The Debates Are Pointless

2008-10-29T08:53:00.002-04:00

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Sherman's March in Myth and Memory

2008-10-28T10:50:00.008-04:00

This book looks interesting. From the publisher:

"Legends and myths about Sherman began forming during the March itself, and took more definitive shape in the industrial age in the late-nineteenth century. Sherman's March in Myth and Memory examines the emergence of various myths surrounding one of the most enduring campaigns in the annals of military history. Edward Caudill and Paul Ashdown provide a brief overview of Sherman's life and his March, but their focus is on how these myths came about-such as one description of a "60-mile wide path of destruction"-and how legends about Sherman and his campaign have served a variety of interests."

"Sherman's March in Myth and Memory looks at the general's treatment in the press, among historians, on stage and screen, and in literature, from the time of the March to the present day. The authors show us the many ways in which Sherman has been portrayed in the media and popular culture, and how his devastating March has been stamped into our collective memory."

Who has the Offical Right to Claim Thomas Jefferson?

2008-10-25T00:48:00.003-04:00

Josh asked me to write this, but he may be disappointed in the response.

It is a well know fact that both political parties like to reach into the past and pick and choose famous Americans who would support their cause. Republicans call upon Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt; Democrats call on FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and interestingly enough, Thomas Jefferson. But which political party has been more influenced by Thomas Jefferson and may in fact better represent a Jefferson America? The facts may surprise you.

Central to Jeffersonian political ideology is the concept of the "Country critique." First enumerated by Tory and gentry forces in England following the Glorious Revolution, the Country critique served as a opposition to the growing greed and corruption that drove English politics. Simply put, the Country critique was fonded on certain key assumption, resulting in a generalized world view:

The key to creating a government that protected the life, liberty, and property of its people was virtue.
Virtue was promoted through self-sufficiency; through separating oneself from outside influence that may sway the authenticity of ones vote
Those forced to labor under another's will (mainly day laborers and "wage-slaves") lacked the capacity for virtue because their position necessitated dependence on another
The key to forming a virtuous citizenry, therefore, was to promote an agricultural society, where one was the master of himself and his family, independent and virtuous.
Key modern developments--national debt, patronage, an expansive army, large centralized governments, and overly involved legislation--threatened the virtue of a society
Inequality (at least among white men) threatened virtue, but only when it infringed upon one's independence.

The Country Critique failed in England, due to limitations on land, the influence of the First Minister over patronage throughout the country, and by necessary modern developments in the military and economy. However, the Country Critique thrived in colonial America. In fact, the Country critique was a necessary component in identification the tyranny of England (it rapacious military, greedy King, and attempts to make American dependent). Despite the widespread acceptance of the Country ideology in 1776, by 1789 it had spiraled into anarchic democracy and the abuses of demos against the state.

It is necessary to understand that in Jefferson's political ideology--heavily influenced by the Country critique--the virtuous citizenry was supposed to look past their individual needs in favor of the national ones. If bogged down by special interests, the system failed.

In response to the Anglification of American economic forces under Hamilton, it was necessary for Jefferson and Madison to create a grassroots upswell to country the tyranny and forced bifurcation of American society, as offered by Hamilton. It is important to note that any popular democratic ends promoted by Jefferson were not intentional nor long lasting. Jefferson expected to mobilize the people, right the wrongs of Federalism, then take control of the government in more capable hands than the demos. For the most part Jefferson succeeded.

However, several key factors caused the decline of the Jeffersonian political ideology, including:

The market revolution in the North, which for the first time in American history, produced long lasting and irreversible differences in wealth. The market revolution ended the possibility for egalitarianism and started modern class conflict by destroying traditional deference systems (i.e. the master-journeymen system)
The necessary reliance on slavery in the South to continue the egalitarianism and Country ideology in the South. When it became necessary for southerners to define their independence and virtue on the dependence and slavery of another group, they doomed themselves to failure. Yes, the South was more egalitarian for whites, but what would happen if and when the slaves were freed?
The War of 1812 reduced the success of Jeffersonian policy. It enlarged the debt, promoted a standing army, and forced American politicians to reasonably look at the size and object of government. After 1800, the party system was inherently Jeffersonian, however, the modern consequences of the War of 1812 (debt, increased government, and a national bank) made it possible for Jeffersonians to purse the Country ideology from outside an agrarian frame

Therefore, we come to meat of the argument. Key factors are necessary to promote a Jeffersonian world view: (1) widespread egalitarianism, (2) availability of land and self-sufficiency of the people, and (3) an active local political sphere in place of a large, involved national government. Thus, we turn to the modern goals of Republicans and Democrats

Republicans promote:

Reducing the national debt
Reducing the size of government
Fair tax structure
The autonomy of the individual from the government
Free markets

Democrats promote:

Egalitarian social policy
Egalitarian fiscal policy
Increasing the size of government
A greater role for the government in people's lives
Controlled markets

Thus, by these standards alone, one could claim that the Republicans accurately recreate the nature of Jeffersonian political theory. However, to make this point would be to miss the argument and goal of Jefferson, the man, and the Country thinker.

Although i do not believe that Jefferson would support expanding the electorate or property redistribution, i do believe Jefferson would support the "independence" of American from outside forces. Thus, if necessary to create an egalitarian state, Jefferson might support an Obama-ish plan to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, providing those in the middle with increased self-sufficiency and limiting their dependence on those above. Currently, the entire American social structure is not conducive to Jeffersonian thought. By default, American is an in-virtuous nation. 70% of America's revenue comes from the top 10% of tax payers. In Jefferson's view, this is as bad as the specter of absolutism when Walpole controlled the ear of the King and Parliament through patronage. What, after all, is the modern lobby system but patronage.

Before i discuss Jeffersonian thought for the 21st century, i feel it is necessary to determine which party has more of a claim to Jefferson--the Democrats or Republicans? I believe the answer is both and neither. The Republicans offer Jeffersonian policy, but not his social structure based on virtue. Democrats offer Jeffersonians egalitarianism, but without the necessary policy components to avoid Socialist and Marxist leanings. Thus, neither deserve to defame the name of Jefferson. The Republicans (more accurately, the Neo-Cons) should claim the oligarchical Hamilton; the Democrats the Socialist Eugene Debbs. Neither deserve the endorsement of Jefferson, nor do they have a right to claim it.

In conclusion, i offer at stark contrast to my earlier, more conservative, Hamiltonian and Smithian economic rants, a seemingly opposite view of how best to recreate Jeffersonian society. I know this is scary, but take it for what its worth--the nostalgia of a history student who wishes with all his being to be a virtuous, self-sufficient land owner, mast of my own destiny, and important for the future of our young republic. Here is my idea:

We must start with a near socialistic/Marxian property redistribution. As our founding fathers before us, we must redistribute wealth to guarantee an equal opportunity to own land and share wealth. Look at the distribution of Loyalist and Feme soli following the American Revolution. Historian John Murrin suggests that it was the largest single act of leveling and property redistribution before Lenin and the Communists took control of Russia. If we are in fact committed to virtue, then social and economic inequality are threats to the virtue of every individual. Independence comes from self-sufficiency, which comes from egalitarianism
We must limit the electorate to people who own their own land, or are on the way to owning their own land. Anyone who rents or is dependent on the will of another (including the government) lacks the capacity for virtue, and must therefore, be excluded from the vote. Landowners and independent voters are free from the constraints of special interests and influence from outside forces
Lobbying, pork barrel spending, and congressional earmarks would end. Unequivocally!
The size of the military would be decreased
Government services and bureaucracies would be slashed. Anything deemed necessary would be relegated to the state's unless specifically noted in the Constitution or Judicial review.
The tax structure would be revised and reversed. As an independent landowner and virtuous citizen, it is your responsibility to actively participate in local politics. Only in local politics should regional and special interests come into play. As one moves further away from local, community politics, so to does the effect of special interests groups and tax money. Under Jeffersonian thought, the local government should receive a maximum amount of tax dollars, followed by the state, and national government.
The national debt would be decreased, until it was paid-off. Following the absolution of the national debt, any deficit spending would be discouraged, except in the case of extreme need and unexpected circumstances
American would end its support of foreign nations, but would become a bastion of free trade and free markets
Infrastructure would be increased and maximized
Tolerance, equality, and freedom would be unequivocally extended to all people. Every person has the latent capacity for republican virtue, but only those willing to excuse themselves from dependence or own land have accepted that latent possibility for virtue

This, i believe, is the most accurate platform for Jeffersonian policy in the 21st century.

This may be crazy, an uncharacteristic, but in the name of Jefferson, i would support property redistribution and leveling. However, to produce my idealized Jeffersonian utopia, everyone would have to understand the importance of the Country ideology, strive to be a virtuous citizen, and look towards a common good above self-interest.

I long for the past, yet have only the future to comfort me.

Fin.

Obama as Jimmy Carter

2008-10-24T21:31:00.021-04:00

During this election cycle I have seen this election be compared to just about very previous presidential election like 1968, 1960, 1964, and more recently 1932. I have tried to resist make an such comparisons myself, but I have wasted much time reading articles making such comparisons. Tonight I found a comparison that I haven't thought of before. Historian Mark Moyar (Moyar's Triumph Forsaken is a great revision of the Vietnam War and I highly recommend it.) has made the argument that an Obama presidency may look very similar to Jimmy Carter's presidency. Moyar wrote:

"A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character."

"His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008."

This was interesting:

"Carter also threw out his professed hawkishness on foreign policy. Declaring America liberated from its “inordinate fear of Communism,” he sought better relations with the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. He was much less nice to America’s allies, withdrawing support from those who did not accept his self-righteous demands for human-rights reforms. Friendly regimes in Nicaragua and Iran fell to hostile tyrants."

Moyar concluded:

"Before casting a vote for Obama, Americans must consider the likelihood that he will follow the path of Jimmy Carter — that he will wreck the fragile economy by reneging on promises to cut taxes and spending, that he will be tough on America’s allies and soft on its enemies. The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it."

full article.

Charles Kesler on "The Audacity of Barack Obama"

2008-10-24T16:41:00.025-04:00

This is from the Claremont Review of Books and Kesler wrote:

"Any politician who has taken on Bill and Hillary Clinton's national political machine and won should not be underestimated. Yet Republicans as well as many Democrats persist in underrating Barack Obama's electoral talents and, above all, his soaring political ambition."

"His writerly mind, professorial bearing, and effortless self-control make it difficult to take his measure as a politician. He can seem cool, detached, unusually introspective. As a wag at the Financial Times put it, if John McCain's life story is the stuff of Hollywood movies, Obama's is like an off-Broadway play—it lacks action but is full of internal monologues. Raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, his father a Kenyan, his mother a sweet Midwestern atheist, Obama as a young man thought himself something of an outsider wherever he went. Smart and popular, he seemed to prefer to maintain his emotional distance, partly because he was confused about his own identity (as he explains in Dreams from My Father, the autobiography he published at age 33), and partly because he feared being trapped in places that were too small for his talents."

"Eager to find himself by finding a community to which he could belong, he was struck, nonetheless, by the flaws or limits of every race, culture, and country he encountered. Unlike other intelligent human beings who have made the same discovery, Obama did not lower his expectations but decided that, just as he could and did choose to refashion his own identity, communities could do the same, with a little help. He spent three years as a community organizer in Chicago, but was disillusioned with the results. Eventually he found in politics, and especially in political oratory, the path he was seeking: the way to redeem the sins of an existing community by leading it to a vision of its future, better self; and to introduce himself, proudly biracial, multicultural, and progressive, as living proof that the divisions and disappointments of the past can be overcome, if never quite left behind."

On Obama's disgust for bipartisanship:

"Thus the commentators who interpret Obama as a new kind of post-partisan political figure get it exactly wrong. It's true that he wants to stop "arguing about the same ole stuff," as he told Planned Parenthood; he wants to move beyond the decades-long debate between liberalism and conservatism. Bill Clinton wished for the same thing in 1992, as did George W. Bush in 2000. The 42nd and 43rd presidents had doctrines that they hoped would precipitate this magic synthesis—the Third Way, and compassionate conservatism, respectively. What's interesting, as political scientist James W. Ceaser noted in these pages ("What a Long, Strange Race It's Been," Spring 2008), is that Obama does not feel the need for such a doctrine. Nor does John McCain. The 2008 race is taking place squarely within the familiar ideological framework of liberalism and conservatism, but with McCain promising some maverick departures from the norm (while still accepting the norm), and Obama talking up hope and the need for change. The change needed, however, is for nothing less than a full-blown electoral earthquake that will permanently shatter the 50-50 America of the past four presidential elections. He thinks liberals can get beyond the old debate by finally winning it."

On Obama, Abraham Lincoln, and partisan politics:

"Thus Obama compares the new majority he seeks to build to the majority party that Lincoln helped to create. He tries to inspire Democrats by appealing to the founder of the generations-long, post-bellum Republican majority. This is partisan ambition of a high order, masquerading as high-toned bipartisanship or post-partisanship: Obama speaks as though Lincoln were trying to overcome the country's divisions by calling for unity, for cooperation in the spirit of national renewal. In fact, Lincoln's point was that the Union would "become all one thing, or all the other." It would become either all free, or all slave. Lincoln's road to unity ran through division, through forcing the country to choose. Obama's point is similar, despite his soothing language: our divisions will be healed once the country is safely in the hands of a new liberal, Democratic majority."

Kesler concluded:

"Sometimes it helps to take the long view. Audacity is a curious word with two meanings, which reflect a genuine moral ambiguity. It means both boldness, daring, confidence—and reckless daring, rashness, foolhardiness. It can be a good or a bad thing, a virtue or a vice. Hope, by contrast, is a passion; in the language of the medieval schools, hope aims at a future, arduous, and possible good. It doesn't always attain that good, however. There is also hope as a theological virtue, but presumably Obama doesn't mean to offer eternal happiness to his followers. His vision is of earthly happiness, wholeness, and justice. As he explained to Americans in 2004, in his debut at the Democratic National Convention, his name, Barack, means "blessed.""

full article.

Dewey Defeats Truman...Is What I'm Praying For

2008-10-23T09:17:00.006-04:00

As election day nears, I have come to terms with an Obama victory, but I am praying for a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment. I know this is a long shot, but I can still dream.

New Jersey's Civil War: "Brave Volunteers of New Jersey"

2008-10-21T16:11:00.031-04:00

After the surrender of Fort Sumter, which ushered in the Civil War, the martial spirit swept the North and New Jersey was no different than the other northern states. Young men from New Jersey rushed to recruitment offices where they joined the ranks of the state's volunteer regiments. This song, "Brave Volunteers of New Jersey," reflected the attitudes and euphoria that were exhibited in the first months of the war.

"The brave volunteers of New Jersey, / All patriots, noble and true;/ Aroused at the call of our country,/ We'll stand by the red, white, and blue,/ To tyrants we'll never give in;/ Rebellion should have its just due,/ For liberty union and liberty live, in/ The hearts of true Jersey Blue."

"Bold treason, uprising, is striving/ To pluck the bright stars from the blue;/ And freedom's last hope is surviving/ Maintained by the swords of the true--/ Shall liberty languish and perish,/ Because we are not brave, or true?/ Oh no! in our bosoms we cherish/ The fame of the rue Jersey Blue."

"Our fathers of old, long before use/ Won, and left a proud name for their sons,/ Their spirits are hovering o'er us,/ Their blood in their children still runs--/ Oh long may we share in, and merit/ The glory to patriots due;/ We'll maintain the proud name we inherit/ Long, long live the true Jersey Blue."

"No party nor clan shall divide us,/ The Union we'll place above all--/ The laws of our land must still guide use/ United we'll stand, or we'll fall--/ And long may the blessings of heaven/ Descend on the brave and the true;/ Three cheers for the union be given,/ And three for the true Jersey Blue."

Good Post on "Bob Roggio's Twisted Logic"

2008-10-21T09:13:00.004-04:00

This is from the blog Elephant Owners and I think it is a good critique of the substance of Roggio's policy proposals which are, well, not very intelligent at all. From the post:

"Let’s point out to Roggio that Jim Geralch and the Republicans do not set the agenda in Congress anymore. Nancy Pelosi does. Our most immediate problem is energy and the Democrats have done absolutely nothing to address the problem. The Congress has been out of sessions for months and it is very unlikely that they will return to session before the election. If Bob Roggio was to blame someone for inaction, his finger should be pointing at Nancy Pelosi."

Some of this post demonstrates the nationalization of local politics.

full post.

Clarence Thomas on "How to Read the Constitution"

2008-10-20T20:23:00.015-04:00

This is from today's Wall Street Journal.

"When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense."

"Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent "me" generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice -- unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants -- large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you."

"This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in."

"Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court."

Thomas concluded:

"Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."

Full article.

All Politics Is Not Local: The Nationalization of Local Politics and the Decline of True Representation, Part 1

2008-10-20T19:59:00.026-04:00

Tip O’Neill once uttered the phrase “all politics is local,” meaning that what concerns people the most when voting for representatives and leaders are, generally, local issues. How is politician X going to represent my district? What will candidate Y to about the district’s sky-rocketing property tax? Will politician Z help to create jobs in our community? These were some concerns that used to hold sway over how voters chose their representatives. People cared deeply about the fate of their communities and politicians and candidates for local office knew this and campaigned on local issues.

Things have changed. Now the political landscape is so polarized that local issues to don’t even matter anymore. It’s not so much the people that are caught up in a ridiculous partisan struggle for the heart of American politics. (I do, however, know plenty of people that are partisan voters and will vote for one party and hold the opinion that the party they support is as infallible as the pope.) Politicians, those who are in office and those are running for office, are to blame for the nationalization of local politics. They are the ones that are speaking to issues that, though they are important, are not at the center of what is best for each district.

The first culprit I will examine is Democrat Bob Roggio who is running against Representative Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania’s Sixth District. Roggio, a political lightweight and newcomer, has been running one of the most incompetent, un-intelligent, deceitful campaigns in the Delaware Valley. Roggio, like many of his ilk, is waging his campaign against George W. Bush and not his actual opponent. The failed presidency of Bush has given Roggio the luxury of running against Gerlach by tying him to W.’s disastrous presidency. Like many other Democrats, Roggio is not being forced to stand for anything too particular, which is evidenced by his simplistic policy proposals that just mirror general Democratic talking points. Strike that. His policy proposals are merely dumbed-down version of usual Democratic policies.

Roggio, on his website, does not speak to issues that matter to the people of Pennsylvania’s Sixth district. He has resorted to the bankrupt and overplayed tactic of connecting the president’s name to his opponents name via the /.

Here’s some examples from Roggio’s website: He claimed that once he is in office he will vote “for tax cuts for middle class families and by repealing the Bush/Gerlach tax breaks for people making over $250,000 a year.” (I know this statement is very deceitful and displays a simplistic political mind, but I am not going to deal with the substance of this statement in this post.) On fixing the banking crisis: “Under the failed policies of George Bush and Jim Gerlach, the financial markets have gone without enforced regulations at the expense of the American taxpayer.” (Once again, the substance displays a lacking of understanding the economy, but that is not my focus here.) Again on taxes: "Bush and Gerlach have consistently provided tax cuts for millionaires..."

By running for a local office using national issues, Roggio is denying his constituency, if elected, of someone who cares for and will fight for his district. I’m sure that crying wolf…sorry…crying Bush will rally the support of many die hard Democrats and disillusioned Republicans, but it does nothing to rational independent voters who care deeply for their communities. By running against Bush (which is a disease that plagues the entire Democratic Party) Roggio is, in effect, insulting the voters of his district. He is sending the message to them that their concerns are not important enough for him to place them at the center of his policy proposals. With any luck and some wishful thinking the voters of this district will wake up and repudiate this type of politics and send Roggio back to his rather large home.

In the next post on this topic I will take a look at John Adler.

General Barksdale's Charge at Gettyburg

2008-10-19T20:05:00.032-04:00

This Don Troiani Print is titled "Barksdale's Charge" and I decided to post it, and others like it in the future, because many academic historians, led by Gary Gallagher, detest these prints. Perhaps they think that they are not PC or that they glorify war and the Lost cause. (See Mark Grimsley's post)

The focus of this print is General William Barksdale's charge on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Barksdale, a Mississippian, had been a fiery general and fighter in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. He had been anxious join into battle at Gettysburg and when he received his order to commence his portion of the fight he is reported to have said: "Attention, Mississippians! Battalions forward! Dress to the colors and Forward to the foe! Onward, Brave Mississippians! For Glory!"

Barksdale's Mississippians joined the fight against Union forces and and experienced success, but the cost of that success was Barkdal's life. This is historian David J. Eicher's account of the results of the battle:

"As Barkdale's men surged eastward, northeast of Trotsle's Farm, it was supported by the brigade of Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox. The charge of the Mississippians was a success. In the aftermath of the charge, however, Barksdale was spotted lying on the ground, and a private, Joseph C. Lloyd of the 13th Mississippi Infantry, gave the fallen general a drink of water from his canteen. Union Brig. Gen. Joseph B. Carr had first given an order to fire at a Confederate officer mounted on a white horse, believed to be Barksdale. Struck above the left knee, Barksdale nonetheless continued the fight. He was then hit in the left foot by a cannon shot. Still, Barksdale continued on. Only the third wound, a Minie bullet delivered to the chest, knocked him from his horse onto the ground, where he was found by Lloyd. The young private was shaken when the water Barksdale drank came oozing out of his chest. In the oncoming milky twilight, the general was captured and taken to the Jacob Hummelbaugh House in the rear, where he died the following day." (See Eicher, The Longest Night, pp. 533-534)

A New Graphic Novel About Confederate General Patrick Cleburne

2008-10-19T19:32:00.005-04:00

The Phillies Are Going To The World Series

2008-10-16T09:01:00.005-04:00

Good Blog on New Jersey History

2008-10-15T19:22:00.005-04:00

Anyone interested in New Jersey history should check out Rediscovering the Grove.

Obama = Income Redistribution

2008-10-15T18:46:00.013-04:00

I found this post on powerlineblog.com in which its author, Scott Johnson, argued that Obama's economic policies are nothing more than income redistribution. Johnson wrote:

"When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell him to spread his own wealth around. It was in any event a rare moment of candor on the part of Senator Obama."

"Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes."

"Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, It doesn't represent much in the way of change. According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid)."

"The personal income tax, the federal government's main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax."

"Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warns Aristotle."

"The founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others therefore made it a "first object of government" to protect personal property from unjust confiscation. Numerous provisions were included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens."

Full post.

New Books on Andrew Jackson

2008-10-15T09:27:00.014-04:00

Here are some some new books on Andrew Jackson and his times and both look interesting.

John Meacham's American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House will be released on November 11. Here's a description from Amazon.com:

"Andrew Jackson, his intimate circle of friends, and his tumultuous times are at the heart of this remarkable book about the man who rose from nothing to create the modern presidency. Beloved and hated, venerated and reviled, Andrew Jackson was an orphan who fought his way to the pinnacle of power, bending the nation to his will in the cause of democracy. Jackson’s election in 1828 ushered in a new and lasting era in which the people, not distant elites, were the guiding force in American politics. Democracy made its stand in the Jackson years, and he gave voice to the hopes and the fears of a restless, changing nation facing challenging times at home and threats abroad. To tell the saga of Jackson’s presidency, acclaimed author Jon Meacham goes inside the Jackson White House. Drawing on newly discovered family letters and papers, he details the human drama–the family, the women, and the inner circle of advisers–that shaped Jackson’s private world through years of storm and victory."

"One of our most significant yet dimly recalled presidents, Jackson was a battle-hardened warrior, the founder of the Democratic Party, and the architect of the presidency as we know it. His story is one of violence, sex, courage, and tragedy. With his powerful persona, his evident bravery, and his mystical connection to the people, Jackson moved the White House from the periphery of government to the center of national action, articulating a vision of change that challenged entrenched interests to heed the popular will–or face his formidable wrath. The greatest of the presidents who have followed Jackson in the White House–from Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to FDR to Truman–have found inspiration in his example, and virtue in his vision."

"Jackson was the most contradictory of men. The architect of the removal of Indians from their native lands, he was warmly sentimental and risked everything to give more power to ordinary citizens. He was, in short, a lot like his country: alternately kind and vicious, brilliant and blind; and a man who fought a lifelong war to keep the republic safe–no matter what it took."

"Jon Meacham in American Lion has delivered the definitive human portrait of a pivotal president who forever changed the American presidency–and America itself."

Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson by David S. Reynolds. From the publisher:

"America experienced unprecedented expansion and turmoil in the years between 1815 and 1848. In Waking Giant, Bancroft Prize-winning historian and literary critic David S. Reynolds illuminates the period's exciting political story as well as the fascinating social and cultural movements that influenced it. He casts fresh light on Andrew Jackson, who redefined the presidency, along with John Quincy Adams and James K. Polk, who expanded the nation's territory and strengthened its position internationally."

"Waking Giant captures the turbulence of a democracy caught in the throes of the controversy over slavery, the rise of capitalism, and the birth of urbanization. Reynolds reveals unknown dimensions of the Second Great Awakening with its sects, cults, and self-styled prophets. He brings to life the reformers, abolitionists, and temperance advocates who struggled to correct America's worst social ills. He uncovers the political roots of some of America's greatest authors and artists, from Ralph Waldo Emerson and Edgar Allan Poe to Thomas Cole and Asher B. Durand, and he reveals the shocking phenomena that marked the age: bloody duels and violent mobs, P. T. Barnum's freaks and all-seeing mesmerists, polygamous prophets and wealthy prostitutes, table-lifting spiritualists and rabble-rousing feminists. All were crucial to the political and social ferment that led to the Civil War."

Hamilton's Curse

2008-10-13T22:03:00.016-04:00

Thomas DiLorenzo's forth coming book On Alexander Hamilton looks like it could be an interesting read. In a recent article titled "What Hamilton Has Wrought" DiLorenzo wrote:

"The current economic crisis is the inevitable consequence of what I call Hamilton’s Curse in my new book of that name. It is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and his political, economic, and constitutional philosophy. As George Will once wrote, Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton’s country."

"The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system – the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from – to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital."

"Jefferson and his followers opposed him every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton’s agenda was totally destructive of liberty. And unlike Hamilton, they took Adam Smith’s warnings against economic interventionism seriously."

"Hamilton complained to George Washington that "we need a government of more energy" and expressed disgust over "an excessive concern for liberty in public men" like Jefferson. Hamilton "had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived," wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter."

"Hamilton and his political compatriots, the Federalists, understood that a mercantilist empire is a very bad thing if you are on the paying end, as the colonists were. But if you are on the receiving end, that’s altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks would say."

"Hamilton was neither the inventor of capitalism in America nor "the prophet of the capitalist revolution in America," as biographer Ron Chernow ludicrously asserts. He was the instigator of "crony capitalism," or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class. Far from advocating capitalism, Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism" according to the great late nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner."

Full article.

Happy Columbus Day!!....Christopher Columbus Was A Horrible Human Being

2008-10-13T21:07:00.018-04:00

I thought that this would be an appropriate post for Columbus Day. In "Examining the Reputation of Columbus" Jack Weatherford wrote:

"Christopher Columbus' reputation has not survived the scrutiny of history, and today we know that he was no more the discoverer of America than Pocahontas was the discoverer of Great Britain. Native Americans had built great civilizations with many millions of people long before Columbus wandered lost into the Caribbean."

"Columbus' voyage has even less meaning for North Americans than for South Americans because Columbus never set foot on our continent, nor did he open it to European trade. Scandinavian Vikings already had settlements here in the eleventh century, and British fisherman probably fished the shores of Canada for decades before Columbus. The first European explorer to thoroughly document his visit to North America was the Italian explorer Giovanni Caboto, who sailed for England's King Henry VII and became known by his anglicized name, John Cabot. Caboto arrived in 1497 and claimed North America for the English sovereign while Columbus was still searching for India in the Caribbean. After three voyages to America and more than a decade of study, Columbus still believed that Cuba was a part of Asia, South America was only an island, and the coast of Central America was near the Ganges River."

"Unable to celebrate Columbus' exploration as a great discovery, some apologists now want to commemorate it as a great "cultural encounter." Under this interpretation, Columbus becomes a sensitive genius thinking beyond his time in the passionate pursuit of knowledge and understanding. The historical record refutes this, too."

"Contrary to popular legend, Columbus did not prove that the world was round; educated people had known that for centuries. The Egyptian-Greek scientist Erastosthenes, working for Alexandria and Aswan, already had measured the circumference and diameter of the world in the third century B.C. Arab scientists had developed a whole discipline of geography and measurement, and in the tenth century A.D., Al Maqdisi described the earth with 360 degrees of longitude and 180 degrees of latitude. The Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai still has an icon -- painted 500 years before Columbus -- which shows Jesus ruling over a spherical earth. Nevertheless, Americans have embroidered many such legends around Columbus, and he has become part of a secular mythology for schoolchildren. Autumn would hardly be complete in U.S. elementary schools without construction-paper replicas of the three ships that Columbus sailed to America, or without drawings of Queen Isabella pawning her jewels to finance Columbus' trip."

"This myth of the pawned jewels obscures the true and more sinister story of how Columbus financed his trip. The Spanish monarch invested in his excursion, but only on the condition that Columbus would repay this investment with profit by bringing back gold, spices, and other tribute from Asia. This pressing need to repay his debt underlies the frantic tone of Columbus' diaries as he raced from one Caribbean island to the next, stealing anything of value."

"After he failed to contact the emperor of China, the traders of India, or the merchants of Japan, Columbus decided to pay for his voyage in the one important commodity he had found in ample supply -- human lives. He seized 1,200 Taino Indians from the island of Hispaniola, crammed as many onto his ships as would fit, and sent them to Spain, where they were paraded naked through the streets of Seville and sold as slaves in 1495. Columbus tore children from their parents, husbands from wives. On board Columbus' slave ships, hundreds died; the sailors tossed the Indian bodies into the Atlantic. "

"Because Columbus captured more Indian slaves than he could transport to Spain in his small ships, he put them to work in mines and plantations which he, his family, and followers created throughout the Caribbean. His marauding band hunted Indians for sport and profit -- beating, raping, torturing, killing, and then using the Indian bodies as food for their hunting dogs. Within four years of Columbus' arrival on Hispaniola, his men had killed or exported one-third of the original Indian population of 300,000."

"This was the great cultural encounter initiated by Christopher Columbus. This is the event celebrated each year on Columbus Day. The United States honors only two men with federal holidays bearing their names. In January we commemorate the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr., who struggled to lift the blinders of racial prejudice and to cut the remaining bonds of slavery in America. In October, we honor Christopher Columbus, who opened the Atlantic slave trade and launched one of the greatest waves of genocide known in history."

Also check out "Christopher Columbus: The Untold Story."

Et Tu, Bush?

2008-10-09T19:50:00.034-04:00

What William F. Buckley helped to found and Barry Goldwater strengthened and Ronald Reagan revolutionized is now in danger of completely collapsing. The conservative movement is in definitely in peril, but not from angry hoards of barbarians ready to storm the gates. No, not in the least. The figure at the center of the movement’s downfall is from within; George W. Bush. Bush, and not a popular outcry for liberalism, is bringing the end of conservative dominance in our national politics. Eight years of incompetence has done more to take down conservatism then the Democrats have done over the past eight years. Lets us count the ways in which W has doomed (at least temporarily) the conservative movement.

George W. Bush: The Ugly Liberal

First of all, I hesitate to label Bush a conservative. Yes, Bush is conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I concede that point. Now, on the other hand there is his record as president. Bush has overseen the largest growth in the federal government that this nation has experienced in years. Not to mention the sickening expanse of executive authority. For example, take the Patriot Act, which Congress passed, but Bush signed it into law. He could have vetoed it, but chose not to stop it. He has also been the prime beneficiary of that atrocious act. How has it been used by Bush and his administration? Well, to curtail some of the civil liberties of Americans. I’m not saying the United States under Bush is on par with Stalinist Russia, but it is not what we should expect from an American president. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be in defense of personal liberties and against big government? Mr. Bush seems to be pro-big government and anti-personal liberties.

Second, we can look at federal spending under Bush. When one looks at the massive increase in federal spending under W, one comes away asking; “are you sure he’s a conservative?” Well, if he is one, then I seriously should think about calling myself something other than conservative. I guess “compassionate conservative” is just code for “big spending liberal.” In terms of federal spending, Bush makes Bill Clinton look like a conservative. Writing about W’s spending, Mark Brandly of the Ludwig von Mises Institute stated: “In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%...For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%, and under Bush I federal spending increased 23% in four years. In the 2000 election, Bush II promised to shovel money into all sorts of programs — and he's kept that promise.” According to this graph non-defense spending under Bush is the highest it has been since the early 1970s.

George W. Bush is responsible for the rise of Barack Obama.

Despite Barack Obama’s charisma and undeniable oratorical skills, he would not be on the verge of being elected United States President if George W. Bush had not been a colossal f@#k up. Barack Obama leads in the most recent polls 49% over John McCain’s 43%. (This 6 point lead is mainly due to the financial crisis and the false perception that Democrats are better on economic issues. One can argue, as I am here, that a Democrat in Republican’s clothing has been in the White House during this financial crisis. Not to mention the Democratic controlled congress also oversaw this catastrophe, but I digress) However, for most of the summer the polls have been fairly tight and McCain has had the lead for a few weeks in September. Obama, despite the damage that Bush has done for conservatives, has not been able to run away in the polls and it is not because of his race, but his politics. Obama may become our next President and it is not because he has promised change (the change he is offering actually came to the nation in 2006 and what has that done for us?) Imagine, if you will, what the polls may look like today if Bush had stayed true conservatism and showed any signs of competence. So, if Obama is elected to the presidency, then Democrats should sincerely thank W. And Republicans should blame Bush.

George W. Bush’s presidency has wasted John McCain’s candidacy and squandered the legacy of the Republican Revolution of 1994.

This is the flip side of the rise of Obama. John McCain has the potential to be Ronald Reagan, but thanks to President Bush he will mostly likely be another Barry Goldwater. I’m not saying that McCain would be the greatest president that this nation will has seen and will ever see. However, I do think that McCain could have been a very good president. (McCain could still win the election, but I have already conceded victory to Obama.) Thanks to the decidedly non-conservative policies and general incompetence of George W. Bush, we have been deprived of a more consistently conservative leader like McCain. McCain could have served as conservative check on Congress, which after November 4 will have an overwhelming Democratic majority.

Beginning in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” Republicans held control over congress for twelve years. During the first six of those twelve years these conservative Republicans served as an effective check on the Clinton administration. The legacy of the first half of Republican rule was the balanced budget. (Bill Clinton and his cronies and apologists like to argue that Clinton balanced the budget, but that is lie.) The balanced budget led to a record federal surplus that was then, in turn, spent by “Big Spender” Bush. The balanced budget didn’t go far enough. As Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute wrote in 1998: “We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?” Imagine if Bush had taken the next logical step and cut the federal budget instead of spending and spending and more spending. And imagine if we had a true conservative in the White House who inherited that balanced budget and the surplus.

There is a lot more than can be said on this subject, much more than a blog will allow. Bush has ruined conservatism, but we conservatives, including myself, share a small part of the blame for this eight-year mess. We helped to elect him twice. We made the bed and we are now going to be forced to sleep in that bed. As much as I fear that McCain will suffer the same fate as Goldwater, I would welcome the same results as that loss. Goldwater’s loss in 1964 helped to revitalize and fire up the movement that helped to bring about a thirty-year shift in American politics. Who will lead the next conservative revolution? Sarah Palin? Bobby Jindal? I don’t know, but I do believe someone will lead us out of the wilderness and back to the Promised Land.

Over-Regulation Will Not Fix The Financial Crisis

2008-10-08T21:31:00.006-04:00

I came across this on the New Republic's website. Alvaro Vargas Llosa argued that de-regulation was not the cause of the financial crisis and over-regulation is not the answer. Llosa wrote:

"As was the case with the 1929 crash that ushered in the Great Depression, the current financial meltdown is giving rise to myths that will influence public policy for decades to come. It is imperative that those myths be debunked before the next U.S. administration starts to make important decisions, followed by many other countries. By far the most dangerous myth is that deregulation is the root cause of the problem."

"Yes, Wall Street firms were greedy, irresponsible and, in many cases, downright stupid. But those are fairly constant features in any society and there is no reason to believe that investment bankers were any more greedy, irresponsible and stupid in 2007 and 2008 than, say, five or 10 years earlier."

"As many authoritative economists are desperately trying to explain amid all the confusion, the culprit was a system geared toward loaning money to people who were not in a position to pay it back. Two policies underpinned that system: easy money by the Federal Reserve and the government-induced lowering of standards for approving loan requests."

Full article.

The Second Presidential Debate

2008-10-08T14:33:00.002-04:00

James Taranto on The 'Fact Checking' Fad

2008-10-08T08:52:00.009-04:00

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto argued:

"2008 is the year in which "fact checking" of political ads and statements became a full-blown journalistic fad. May it soon go the way of streaking and Mexican jumping beans."

"The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars."

"Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican)."

Full editorial.

Common Place Released Its October Issue

2008-10-07T16:23:00.005-04:00

Common-Place has released its October issue, which is devoted entirely to politics. There are some great articles...so check it out.

Economics, ORLY?

2008-10-05T19:42:00.005-04:00

It is not the government's responsibility to create jobs. It is not the responsibility of the private sector to create jobs. Jobs are a result of a growing economy and expanding wealth. It is the responsibility of the government to produce an environment (without extended and over active interest) conducive to promote the growth of the economy.

Thus, let us address the common liberal claim: Republicans and Conservatives, alike, give subsidies to companies who ship jobs over seas.

Lets break this down into parts: (1) creating jobs, (2) out sourcing, and (3) subsidies.

How are jobs created? Jobs are created when supply and demand allow jobs to be created--mainly when demand exceeds supply. Thus, labor, a variable resource, is increased to help increase the supply of a given product. It is not economically viable to hire more workers when the economy is bad. It is not economically viable to hire labor when one's products are not in demand. It is not economically viable to hire more labor when the necessary labor is already available.

A company must have the resources to expand its labor force. When a company is taxed, it limits the available resources, limiting a companies ability to hire labor, open factories, buy supplies, etc. Taxing corporations limits available resources. It is said that companies don't pay taxes, this is true, they merely pass on the taxes to the consumer. However, taxation does limit resources, an important fact for later.

Out sourcing? Companies out source because it is cheaper to produce a given product outside of the country than inside. What makes it difficult for companies to produce in America? Taxes. Labor is a variable resource, but it is equivalent regardless of location. A manual worker in Mexico is financially equivalent to a worker in America--but the cost is cheaper. However, managerial and technical crafts are not as equally transferable, thus, many American companies shipped its managerial staff to train cheaper labor, and then get down sized. Out sourcing is a natural capitalist response to cut costs and produce a profit. People are not out sourced out of fairness, dislike, or disdain. It is a matter of numbers. This will be discussed later.

Subsidies are as old as manufacturing itself. It has been proved that subsidies and incentives are better at getting companies to reform its methods than punitive taxation. Would a company be more likely to produce an electric car by offering a huge bounty and incentive for those companies that do, or to punitively tax for companies that continue to produce gas consumptive cars? If the answer is not obvious, you are a fool.

There is no morality, no personality, and no individuality in the market system!

Stop trying to make it happen! It is an emotionless system, and that is okay!

So let's look at all of the factors:

You are now the proud owner of a toy company, RepublaToys Inc. You became very popular with your line of political action figures. You have successfully expanded your business from a sole proprietor, running from your home, to a publicly traded corporation. You have recently bought many factories across the country and have expanded your labor force. However, this is your first year as a corporation and its tax time. The current corporate tax rate in America is approximately 38%.

Thus, when next year comes around, you need to get your profit level up. You did well last year, but investors are looking for a better return. You discover that Ireland is inviting corporation to build there, their corporate tax rate is 12%. Thus, you close 1/2 of your factories and ship them to Ireland. The minimum wage is higher in Ireland, but you are not expected to pay benefits because of Ireland National Health Services (NHS).

Your second year in business you make a killing. you show immense gains and your investors are pleased. However, Americans are complaining about the lack of jobs you produce. Thus, the federal government offers subsidies to your business if you will agree to make 5,000 jobs this year. You open a new factory, make the jobs and receive the subsidies. You make a profit from your factories in Ireland, but your American factories break even.

The next year, there is an economic down turn in America, that only slightly affects Europe. You are forced to lay off more workers, until you decide to move your head quarters to Ireland.

Thus, America has lost lost of jobs and necessary revenue to run the government. How do they respond--they increase the corporate tax rate to 40%.

So you see, this whole system of creating jobs and giving subsidies falls second to the free market system. If you f....funk with the system, you funk with the available jobs.

Simple solutions:

Lower the corporate tax rate; even better, get rid of it!
Stop allowing Non-profits, who in their very nature do not worry about making a profit, control what is acceptable for "socially beneficial" corporations. I.e. Greens: get over it! Socialists: leave the money alone and jobs will be created; Liberals: government cannot do what free markets can
Offer subsidies and incentives for companies who open factories, develop new technologies, and create market viable solutions to the worlds problems

Simply put:

Oil companies: let them drill, tax them less, have more money for your stupid pet projects
Detroit Car Co: get rid of emissions and mileage standards

Liberals, leave the market alone!

Phillies Advance to the NLCS for the First Time Since 1993

2008-10-05T19:04:00.003-04:00

Forrest McDonald on Book TV's In Depth

2008-10-04T15:11:00.008-04:00

Click image to view the video.

Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-04T14:42:00.003-04:00

Behold Leviathan

2008-10-03T23:35:00.030-04:00

Well, the bail out passed to day and Bush signed it to make it official. OH WHAT A GLORIOUS DAY!!! As if the government wasn't large, useless and intrusive enough, but now I can't even imagine the the beast that will be unleashed after today's festivities. The real kicker is that most Americans (what a stupid breed these Americans are) think that the government should intervene in this situation. Yes, unfortunately, Americans love the concept of the nanny state. Many believe that it is better to do something, than to do nothing. I find that logic to be lacking, well, any real insight...it's quite simplistic to say the least. Is it not better to do nothing, than to do something reckless that could, possibly, be more harmful than helpful? I am going to end this post with some quotes from Milton Friedman and hope that they will serve as a warning against the threat of Big Government.

"The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy."

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

"The power to do good is also the power to do harm. "

The Bail Out is Socialist...and Not Good Economics

2008-10-03T07:22:00.021-04:00

In a recent article, "Kill the Bailout," Robert Tracinski argued that the bail out is socialist and an attack on free markets and, well, reality. Tracinski wrote:

"The House of Representatives deserves praise for taking swift action to avert a growing economic crisis--by not approving the trillion-dollar financial bailout plan."

"The bailout bill was blocked Monday by a rebellion among House Republicans, who voted two-to-one against a plan they consider a step down the "slippery slope to socialism," in the words of Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling."

"They are absolutely correct, and the 133 Republicans who voted to stop this coup against the financial markets--not to mention some of the 95 Democrats who may have balked for similar reasons--need to find the courage to stand firm. That's especially true since the Senate has voted to approve the bailout."

"The Senate is supposed to serve, in James Madison's analogy, as the "cooling saucer" for the hot tea served up by the House--but in this case, it is the House that has remained cool and refused to panic. That's because the hysterical demand for a bailout didn't come up from the people; it came down from the elites in Washington and Manhattan. The House is reflecting the sensible skepticism coming up from the folks on Main Street who don't want to pay the bills for bailing out Hank Paulson's former colleagues on Wall Street."

"Some cold, realistic scrutiny of the bailout is desperately needed because this plan is not just an attack on the free market. It is an attack on reality. The financial crisis was caused by more than a decade of using government power to rewrite the facts of reality and override the judgment of the market, and the bailout just offers more of the same fantasy economics."

"Congress wanted everyone to be able to get a mortgage to buy a home, regardless of income, credit history, or ability to save for a down payment. The name for this contradiction was "affordable housing," an initiative aimed at providing the benefits of home ownership to those who could not, in fact, afford it. So when the market concluded that low-income borrowers could not meet the credit requirements for mortgages, the Clinton administration invoked trumped-up charges of racism to expand enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, bullying banks into dropping as "arbitrary" such old-fashioned credit standards as proof of income. And when the market balked at the increased credit risk created by these loans, Congress backed the expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that used federally guaranteed money to buy up the increasingly risky mortgages."

Full article.

"Paper is Poverty": Thomas Jefferson on Paper Money, Hard Currency, and Banks

2008-10-02T14:13:00.015-04:00

All this talk lately of banks and bail outs and big government has me reconsidering various aspects of the American financial system. Before this financial crisis I didn't much think about things such as finance or currency. I didn't see any problems with fiat currency, (to be honest I didn't exactly know what fiat currency was, but I thought I did) but now I am coming to see the utter disastrousness of this type of currency system. I am beginning to become a convert to the gold standard. (maybe we can go back in time and nominate Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for the presidency)

I recently came across a post on John Maass's A Student of History entitled "WWJD," what would Jefferson do? As a student of the past I often try to put current events into historical perspective. So, I have tried to adopt WWJD. Though I am using WWJD in a different way than Maass, I have decided to look to Jefferson for some insight (or whatever insight I can glean from his writings) on the current economic/financial situation. I can't exactly be sure what Jefferson would do, but I do know how he felt about paper money, hard currency and banks. Here are some quotes from Jefferson's writings on these subjects.

On paper money vs. hard currency:

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." (1813)

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." (1788)

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." (1791)

On the dangers of paper money:

"That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied." (1817)

"The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." (1813)

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us." (1813)

On the importance of personal economy:

"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." (1787)

"Every discouragement should be thrown in the way of men who undertake to trade without capital." (1785)

"We should try whether the prodigal might not be restrained from taking on credit the gewgaw held out to him in one hand, by seeing the keys of a prison in the other." (1786)

On banks and banking:

"That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied." (1810)

"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will." (1819)

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." (1816)

"The principle of rotation... in the body of [bank] directors... breaks in upon the espirit de corps so apt to prevail in permanent bodies; it gives a chance for the public eye penetrating into the sanctuary of those proceedings and practices, which the avarice of the directors may introduce for their personal emolument, and which the resentments of excluded directors, or the honesty of those duly admitted, might betray to the public; and it gives an opportunity at the end of the year, or at other periods, of correcting a choice, which on trial, proves to have been unfortunate." (1803)

I'm Not Sure I'm Ready For Obammunsim

2008-10-02T11:13:00.009-04:00

This is What Planning Gets Ya

2008-09-30T21:42:00.010-04:00

I had to sit through almost a three hour discussion of the merits of communism and central planning. While we were talking about committed lefties like Charles Beard and Edmund Wilson I couldn't help but think of Frederich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Hayek, correctly, argued that a planned economy will always lead to serfdom and slavery. So, I thought I'd post a link to the Illustrated Road to Serfdom, which offers a concise summery of Hayek's overall argument. (click the image to view)

"The Philosophy of Liberty"

2008-09-30T14:46:00.005-04:00

This goes out to my Libertarian and thoroughly Jeffersonian comrade, B. Mad. Enjoy (click the image to view)

How FDR Screwed the Poor

2008-09-30T12:43:00.026-04:00

While looking for damning criticisms of the New Deal to counter the overwhelmingly and pathetically pro-New Deal and leftist articles for my comparative history seminar I came across this article by historian Jim Powell. Powell, author of FDR's Folly, wrote about how the New Deal hurt the people it was supposed to help. According to Powell, the New Deal's main source of revenue came in the form of excise taxes which fell disproportionately on the lower classes.

Though the article is from 2003, I feel it can serve as a warning to the current economic situation. The $700 billion dollar bail out was shot down yesterday by the House of Representatives. The news is already being spun by Democrats that it failed because of heartless Republicans despite the fact that 95 House Democrats voted against the bail out. I am not sure how I feel about the plan, but I am beginning to think that maybe the economy would be better off without the bail out. I'm sure that those who favor the bail out have good intentions, but, as Powell concluded, "we should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions."

Here is an excerpt from Powell's article:

"Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today."

"Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities."

"New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up."

" The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent.""

"Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs."

"New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring."

Full article.

[Exit Liberalism Stage Right]

2008-09-29T18:15:00.005-04:00

Regulation doesn't work. Why did the stock market fall today--a record breaking 770 points--because of inflated pressure of government action fell through!

Good Riddance! Let the market live and breath and do what it does best--promote the well being of everyone.

This whole fiasco was started because no one wanted to appear to be a racist. (Trust me, i had to learn about the CRA and fair lending practices because i work in a bank). But really! Really! REALLY? If you don't have money, you don't get a loan. Work harder, save more, and then maybe, if you're lucky, you can achieve the American dream.

***Important*** Who said that everyone automatically gets the American dream?

Last i checked, the American dream didn't fall into anyones lap. Those who achieve it fight! strive! save! and do everything they can to make that dream a reality.

McCain's team was right, this is a mental recession and America is full of whiners!

In the words of two of the smartest men of all time:

Let the rottenness liquidate itself
~ H. Hoover

Let sleeping dogs lie!
~ Sir. R Walpole

New Jersey's Civil War: Burlington City and the Preservation of the Union

2008-09-28T19:43:00.023-04:00

I have a very keen interest in New Jersey history, but more specifically New Jersey during the Civil War. So from time to time I plan to publish a series of posts featuring profiles of key figures within the state during the war as well as primary documents from this era. So hope you enjoy these posts.

In this first post I am going to share some of my personal research on this subject. This is my senior thesis from Rider University, which is entitled "Burlington City and the Preservation of the Union." I examined the words of Burlinton City's soldiers (both white and black) and the prominant Peace Democrat (or Copperhead) James Walter Wall and came to the conclusion that all three groups wished to preserve the Union, but favored different means to bring about this shared goal. This essay is actually serving as basis for my masters' thesis, which I am working on now, that will look at the words and actions of James Wall. I hope to use Wall as a case study of the limits of loyal opposition in New Jersey during the war years. The paper can be read here, but please do not cite or quote without the author's permission.

First Presidential Debate Between John McCain and Barack Obama

2008-09-28T01:41:00.004-04:00

Phillies Clinch NL East Title

2008-09-27T21:01:00.002-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson on the Financial Crisis

2008-09-25T10:54:00.016-04:00

In this article from RealClearPolitics.com, historian Victor Davis Hanson argued that Americans aren't exactly blameless victims in the financial crisis. He wrote:

"When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking."

"Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans."

"All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner."

"But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims."

"Let me explain..."

Full article.

Ron Paul on the Bail Out

2008-09-24T21:25:00.020-04:00

In an exclusive for CNN.com, Ron Paul wrote:

"Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot. "

"For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression."

"Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention."

"Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership."

"Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government."

"Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."

" These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering."

"When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable."

"Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand."

Full article.

World Peace is Bullshit!!!!

2008-09-24T15:21:00.012-04:00

On my way to the Rutgers Library I was confronted by an older gentleman, probably late-50s or early - 60s, who was passing out flyers that read "STOP THE WAR." There were some photos on the flyers, most likely those evil imperialists Bush and Cheney, and there was also alot of writing, which was probably a long list supposed war crimes. I declined to take the flyer, because, well, I simply don't agree with the argument. After I declined, he made a snide comment that "If Bob were here he'd take one." (I was wearing a Bob Dylan t-shirt) To which I replied as I was walking away "I don't care." (I would have said something wittier, but I had work to do. Besides, I have a blog so I can tear his ass up here.) I was tempted to go into the library and print and pass out flyers that would have read "START MORE WARS," but the university's new printing policy prevented me from doing so. Instead I decided to let Penn and Teller rip apart World Peace.

The Best of Shelby Foote

2008-09-24T00:40:00.003-04:00

The Dead Terrorist

2008-09-24T00:28:00.005-04:00

I came across this on Blog Them Out of the Stone Age.

2nd Amendment. Nuff Said!

2008-09-23T22:27:00.002-04:00

The Liberal Embrace of Labor Unions

2008-09-22T15:52:00.012-04:00

I love Westbrook Pegler's damning critique the liberal embrace of those cancerous labor unions. I know it's not PC to read or cite Pegler, but despite the racists remarks he made in his last years, he was one of the earliest and most vocal critics of big government liberalism. (His editorials on FDR and the New Deal were devastating and right on the mark.) This editorial, "The Evolution of the Liberal," has stood the test of time and I believe it's still relevant today. Pegler wrote:

"Back there in the early '20s when Scott Fitzgerald's cult of adolescent crying drunks were bawling that they had lost their souls, liberalism, as we understood it in this country, was first of all opposed to discipline or regimentation. Just for extra, and to make discipline or regimentation particularly odious to free people, it was called goose-stepping, a happy invention of our liberal epitheticians, which brought to mind in a word the detestable arrogance and brutality of the German Kaiser and his government. The Kaiser had just been slapped down and millions of men on the victorious side were breaking ranks and enjoying their release from the restraints and compulsions of military life. Behind them, millions of civilians, women as well as men, also were breaking ranks, so to speak, with the relaxation of the war-time restraints. The lights came on in the streets at night, it was no longer an offense not to draw the blinds at night after dark, you could criticize the government and books of the Now-It-Can-Be-Told series began to tumble off the presses in many languages."

"In the United States, prohibition appeared as a little red blotch, later to develop into a horrible corruption, which left permanent damage in contempt for law and suspicion of public officers long after repeal cured the disease itself, and great was the resentment against prohibition on the ground that a few politico-religious organizations and rich industrialists were trying to force most of the people to abide by the rule and conform to the tastes and an extreme moral verboten of a few."

"Of course, there was much more to liberalism, but the kernel of it was individual rights and rebellion against compulsion beyond the minimum restraints necessary for the regulation of traffic."

"Little did we think then that liberalism would curl up its tail and sting itself full of poison in its angry threshing before two decades had passed, but now ain't it the truth?"

"For today the surviving members of the group who fought most angrily against goose-stepping in the early '20s are almost all to be found in that element who hold that any worker who prefers to remain a loner, or individual, is a pathetic coward, a dirty traitor to his fellowmen, in receipt of secret pay from his boss, a mulish and selfish parasite, enjoying the benefits of other men's struggle and peril of a Fascist."

"Whatever he is, he has no right as an individual to conduct himself as an individual, and by trying to do so he exiles himself from human society, sets himself against his fellowmen and deserves any harm that befalls him in a contest of his own choosing. If he is thrown out of his job, in which it has been contended by the liberals that he has a property right, that is his own fault. If his family suffers mental and physical harassment and goes hungry and cold, that again is his fault, and the failure to protect and provide is his to answer for. If, by the verdict of a union of which he is not a member, after a trial in his absence, his is forever barred from all employment where unions govern the work, that again is his own lookout. He could avoid all these penalties, theoretically, if he would but join the union or walk the goose-step."

"The day came when liberal who had fiercely hated the goose-step, goose-stepped in a sort of prisoners'-march before premises struck by minority vote to revile individual men, stone them and beat them, for their refusal to submit to regimentation and discipline. And men who had insisted that they placed truth above all things so far abandoned their liberalism that they plainly admitted that they preferred to suppress, ignore or deny truths about corruption and a thousand forms of oppression in labor unions rather than hurt their new cause of regimentation or goose-stepping."

"The ball-bat and tire iron, the meat-hook and the brick are effective weapons for organization, but they do not appeal to reason."

Donald Duck as Propagandist: Disney's World War II Films

2008-09-21T10:52:00.014-04:00

Donald Gets Drafted

Der Fuehrer's Face

Education For Death

Sky Trooper

Outside Agitators: Conservative Historians

2008-09-20T18:46:00.013-04:00

To regain the public respect and influence it once had, the historical profession need do only one thing: Enthusiastically admit into its ranks the diversity of opinion that is now missing. It must welcome historians who think outside the framework of the left-wing's world view, and cease to use its professional organizations as mouthpieces for any political agenda. That is not too much to ask.

—Ronald Radosh

Everyone has biases. There is no escaping this. Nowhere is this truer than in academia, especially the field of history. Objectively, in its purest sense, can’t be obtained and therefore is no longer the goal among historians. Whether or not a historian is purposely injecting his…(yes I said just his because I’m tired of writing he/she and his/her and also this is my blog and I could care less about political correctness)…his political views he’s doing so in the types of sources he uses, theories he adopts, and subject matter he writes about. If you come across an article dealing with the gendered roles of African American lesbian postal workers in south central Los Angeles during the McCarthy era, then you can pretty much assume that the historian is a committed leftist.

So, historians are always mingling scholarship and politics. For years I railed against this, but now I embrace the idea. However, I want to make the case that conservative historians should be granted the same luxury that leftist historians enjoy. I’m not saying that conservative historians don’t mix politics and scholarship because they do. Some of the best works produced by conservative historians, like John Lukacs, Forrest McDonald, Ronald Radosh, Allen Weinstein, and Victor Davis Hanson, have been deeply rooted in their own political philosophies. What I am sick and tired of is when these works are ridiculed and labeled as not serious scholarship because they come from the right. I remember last semester a professor making the statement that if you are a conservative historian, then you don’t matter in the profession. This is infuriating!!! What has left-wing history given us over the past two decades? Well, various histories of sex, objects (pencils, zippers, buttons, etc.), postmodernist mumbo jumbo, the social/cultural construction of everything, and American history as a long list of right-wing crimes.

Why should conservative historians not be allowed to mix politics and scholarship? A simple answer is that their political views are not politically correct. However, there is more to it. The subject matter that conservative historians choose to write about is viewed as old fashioned and not trendy or chic. They don’t write about the holy trinity of race, class, and gender or any other leftist topic. (I was sickened and enraged when I heard another professor state on Wednesday: “Race, class, and gender make up the Bermuda Triangle and if you forget about them you will be lost in the Bermuda Triangle.” Cute saying, but it’s completely asinine.) The subject matter that conservative historians examine is taboo. Many research dead white men and some commit and even graver sin by writing about figures such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. OH MY GOD!!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!! BURN THEIR FAMILIES AT THE STAKE!!!!! Many other conservative historians seek to expose left-wing gods as frauds and criminals like Ronald Radosh’s work on the Rosenbergs or Allen Weinstein’s book on Alger Hiss. If these people are exposed as what they were, spies, then the early years of the Cold War must be re-evaluated. Joe McCarthy might not have been so crazy and reckless after all.

Conservative historians, I would argue, tackle subjects that have much more significance than do most leftist historians. What is the importance of studies on the use of sex toys during the progressive period or works on the invention of the concept of the summer camp? They are not important at all, but are merely labeled as significant by leftist historians. I would value works that re-examine issues such as Federalist economic policies or even Jacksonian foreign policy over research on the subjects listed above.

The point I am trying to make is that conservative historians who mix their personal political philosophies with their scholarship should be accepted as scholars by the historical community as a whole. They should be judged on the merits of their research and writing. (My God I sound like an after school special) As an aspiring conservative historian I hope that my work would be judged not by my political beliefs, but on its quality. I also hope that the historical community will practice some of the liberal values that they preach and accept the fact that conservative historians have much to add to the field. Let’s make the profession more democratic. (If that’s the right word)

I May Sound like an Elitist, but That's because I Am!

2008-09-19T18:33:00.007-04:00

The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right.

~ Alexander Hamilton

Although I fall in favor of Jeffersonian thought (limited government, no national debt, local representation, and the independence of the individual from the will of the government), it is impossible to ignore the power and reasoning of the Federalists. Look at the Federalist state between 1787 and 1800 and you will see a state devoted to two things: (1) the division of power out of the hands of the demos [one might say gelding America's raucous democratic spirit], and (2) expanding the government to better run the nation. Although the Federalists and i disagree over the role of the central government, Hamilton and Jefferson certainly agreed about one thing--the need to limit democracy.

"Hold on a second," you may say to yourself. "Is this man really calling for the limiting of democracy?" In a word: Absolutely. The electorate is bloated and saggy (kind of like the state itself). Trim the fat. Cut the excess. Do you believe that people who cannot read should have the right to vote? Do you honestly believe that the infirm and those labeled clinically insane (but not insane enough to be deemed incompetent) should choose our elected officials? Or one better, do people who do not pay property taxes (renters, those living in low income housing, etc.) decide to what ends taxs should be spent? In all honsety, i believe the electorate needs to be cut down to an appropiate size, with certin key factors:

Must own property or working toward that goal (includes home, condo's, rent-to-own, etc.)
Must be literate, to a 5th grade level
Must know basic American politics, i.e. who the president is, who the vice president is, and be able to name at least one represenative from their state
Must be a taxpayer in good standing
Must do all of these things in English

I do not believe that these are unreasonable voting requirements. However i believe it is necessary because of the tenuous situation of our current economy and political system.

The Galup Poll reported today that 79% of American's believe that America's economy is getting worse, with a startling 81% of Americans have a negative consumser outlook (confidence). Furthermore, Gallup synthesizes that the negtive view of the economy has increased Obama's lead over McCain's by 5 points. This data shines light on the negative press recieved by John McCain for his comments made August 20--"The fundmentals of our eocnomy are strong." Taking major heat for these comments, the liberal attacks on John McCain proves the ignorence of the American people and their blind faith in the media and its liberal talking points.

Here is a quick economy lesson for the American people. 73% of Obama supporters believe that America is headed toward, or currently in, a depression. First of all, this shows the ignorence of the laity of what exactly "recession" and "depression" entail. A recession, by definition, is two consecutive quarters of negitve earnings. In fact, in the first qaurter this year, America expierenced growth--0.3%. Although this is not significant, this is still growth. Furthermor, in the second quarter, American expierenced 3.3% growth. GROWTH! CAN YOU HEAR ME! GROWTH! Thus, the common Obama suporter is doubly wrong about the shape of our economy. Furthermore, those who believe we are in a depression should look up the definition. To be in depression, the national growth must be negative 10%. Although McCain might not know much about the economy, his constituency sure does--53% believing that American is growing, but slowly. (For those of you who believe we are in a recession/depression, here is a good sight to cure your ignorance--click here)

The second important economic lesson is the difference between variable resources and fixed resources. Variable resources include labor, land, fluid capital. Fixed resources include factories, machines, trucks, etc. In short-run economic systems (most of the systems of production), one must keep the cost of the variable resources down, to build a profit to pay for fixed resources. Thus, as fluid capital is restricted (i.e. money gets tied up), it becomes necessary to reduce variable resources (i.e. cut jobs). But follow me here, capital is restricted because its value drops; its vaule drops because confidence in the markets drops; confidence is an indivudal factor, so those who promote a fatalistic economic persepctiv (i.e. "The Sky Is Falling," this will be "worse than the great depression!") promote the restirction of capital and the decline of variable resources (i.e. labor, or jobs).

So i ask you, newly informed public--who is responsible for America's tenuious economic position. Becuase our money is not backed by an actual standard--to promtoe fluidity of the markets--the entire economic system is based on consumer opnion. Thus, when we have political pundants who calim that the sky is falling and only the government can save us, i ask, who are the real fear mongers? And they have the gaul to criticize the fundmentals of ou economy. The economy may be stagnant but the fundmentals (i.e. the fixed resources and economic systems like a fluid capital structure and "free" trade) are strong.

Americans, i beseach you, i recognize that my view of minimizing the electorate is an impossible dream. To many politicans and Washington lobbyists growth wealthy and fat off the ignorance of the American people. So i aks, fufill your democratic expectations, expectation that derive from the very foundations of this country:

Own your own land
Pay your taxes
Be educated
Know whats going on

I still distrust you America, but you are all i have!

Palin Cartoons

2008-09-18T15:07:00.006-04:00

These are recent H. Payne cartoons.

Another Olbermann on MSNBC...is this really necesary....FOX only has one O'Reilly

2008-09-18T10:43:00.013-04:00

MSNBC's dissent into shameful liberal partisan politics seems to be almost complete. Chris Matthews is constantly becoming sexually excited on air whenever Obama speaks. Keith Olbermann is a complete asshole. The network yanked conservative Tucker Carlson off the air and the network's other token conservative Joe Scarborough has been sentenced to hosting a pitiful morning show. Now the 9 PM time slot has been filled with The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow is nothing more than the female version of Keith Olbermann, who like Olbermann, is not funny and wastes most of her show reciting meaningless talking points. Not only does recite these talking points, but she smug about it. It is as if she believes that she knows just how all Americans feel and what they believe and (surprise, surprise) they all agree with her. On last night's show (I don't know why I was watching it) she joined in on the all out media assault on Sarah Palin by reciting common Democratic talking points to show that Palin is wrong on women's issues. All she really talked about was abortion and rape. Palin, i guess, opposes abortion and favors rape. First, not all women are pro-choice. Second, it is very condescending to make the claim that the only issues that women are concerned about are abortion and rape. Women also are concerned about the economy, national security as well as the other pressing issues of the day. Maddow's show is just the latest sad event in MSNBC's decline and fall from the soaring heights of media respectability.

Behold a Voice that Cries from the Wilderness

2008-09-18T00:03:00.007-04:00

Like the meteoric rise of certain present political pundits, the appearance of a certain B. Mad on Publius is met by the community with both disappointment and intrigue. Although I am no Connecticut Democ...I mean Independent...one might liken me to a Freshmen Senator (or Governor for that matter) ready to invoke...i mean provoke...reform in all aspects of the current...leadership. Like my current amicable benefactor, i too come from the libertarian/conservative school...although i can be at the same time both more conservative (Oh No! Not one of those crazy Christians...::roll eyes::) and more libertarian (Yes, Ron Paul is God and you have every right to tell me he's not, just don't pass a law that say it either way!)

I just thought i would take this time for cordial introductions. Thus, "Hello blogis-sphere. Run and hide in fear!" That is all!

(I also dig Jefferson like 200 times more than Josh does)

Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

"Jesus was a community organizer; Pilate was a governor"

2008-09-17T15:45:00.008-04:00

This was posted on Pajamas Media today by historian Timothy Furnish and it takes on the ahistorical notion that "Jesus was a community organizer; Pilate was a governor."Furnish wrote:

"My friend Rick Shenkman, who runs History News Network, recently published his new book Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter. Considering the legions of Democrats convinced that “Jesus was a community organizer; Pilate was a governor” qualifies as sound political discourse, I’d have to answer “pretty damn stupid.”"

"According to Rush Limbaugh (citing Lexis-Nexis), the phrase was devised on September 4, 2008, by a Washington Post blogger. As of this writing, 10 days later, Google lists 13,300 hits for the phrase. Most seem to be from the left-wing echo chambers of the Internet, where Daily Kosites, Huffingtonistas, and Obamists have separated virtual shoulders, giving each other electronic high-fives for their wit. But not all are e-cranks: no less a journalistic paragon than Tom Brokaw hit Rudy Giuliani with the phrase on the September 14 Meet the Press. And even some high-ranking Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon, most notably former Gore campaign chair and current DNC member Donna Brazile and Tennessee Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen. Brazile repeated the line on CNN last week, while Representative Cohen dredged it up on the House floor."

"The phrase was intended to counteract the anti-Obama jab by GOP vice-presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin that even a small-town mayor — her job before becoming Alaska’s chief executive — has more responsibility than a community organizer, Obama’s self-described seminal experience. Palin was in turn responding to Democrat belittling of her as the “former mayor of a town of 9,000 people.” (Of course, they can’t exactly call her “the governor of a state as large in land area as all the blue states of 2004 combined.”)"

"This Democrat trope is qualitatively different than the preceding merely political barbs, however. By invoking the founder of the world’s largest religion — considered not merely human but divine by orthodox Christians for two millennia — as well as the Roman official who sentenced him to death, the Democrats are not just raising the insult bar but moving the rhetoric onto a field of battle that is supposed to be off limits."

Full post.

Historian Larry Schweikart on Liberal Lies About American History

2008-09-17T12:10:00.009-04:00

Historian Larry Schweikart's new book, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, looks like a very interesting read. He takes on some of the lies that fill most college textbooks. Here is an interview with the author from FrontPageMag.com. Here is another interview from National Review Online.

The Rosenbergs Were Spies...Period!!!

2008-09-17T11:50:00.012-04:00

Historian Ronald Radosh has written on the recent confession of a Rosenberg co-defendent, which named the Rosenbergs as spies. Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Julius and ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents"

"It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century. After his comments were published, even the Rosenbergs' children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, were left with little hope to hang on to -- and this week, in comments unlike any they've made previously, the brothers acknowledged having reached the difficult conclusion that their father was, indeed, a spy. "I don't have any reason to doubt Morty," Michael Meeropol told Sam Roberts of the New York Times."

"With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple's trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War."

" To this day, this received wisdom permeates our educational system. A recent study by historian Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton has found that very few college history textbooks say simply that the Rosenbergs were guilty; according to Schweikart, most either state that the couple were innocent or that the trial was "controversial," or they "excuse what [the Rosenbergs] did by saying, 'It wasn't that bad. What they provided wasn't important.'"

"Indeed, Columbia University professor Eric Foner once wrote that the Rosenbergs were prosecuted out of a "determined effort to root out dissent," part of a broader pattern of "shattered careers and suppressed civil liberties." In other words, it was part of the postwar McCarthyite "witch hunt.""

"But, in fact, Schweikart is right, and Foner is wrong. The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That's long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week."

"To many Americans, Cold War espionage cases like the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases that once riveted the country seem irrelevant today, something out of the distant past. But they're not irrelevant. They're a crucial part of the ongoing dispute between right and left in this country. For the left, it has long been an article of faith that these prosecutions showed the essentially repressive nature of the U.S. government. Even as the guilt of the accused has become more and more clear (especially since the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of reams of historical Cold War documents), these "anti anti-communists" of the intellectual left have continued to argue that the prosecutions were overzealous, or that the crimes were minor, or that the punishments were disproportionate."

"The left has consistently defended spies such as Hiss, the Rosenbergs and Sobell as victims of contrived frame-ups. Because a demagogue like Sen. Joseph McCarthy cast a wide swath with indiscriminate attacks on genuine liberals as "reds" (and even though McCarthy made some charges that were accurate), the anti anti-communists came to argue that anyone accused by McCarthy or Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover should be assumed to be entirely innocent. People like Hiss (a former State Department official who was accused of spying) cleverly hid their true espionage work by gaining sympathy as just another victim of a smear attack."

"But now, with Sobell's confession of guilt, that worldview has been demolished..."

Full article.

Whoopi Goldberg is an Idiot

2008-09-17T10:28:00.012-04:00

Whoopi Goldberg's recent mocking of John McCain on The View is particularly maddening as both a historian and a libertarian/conservative. I am sure that everybody has seen the clip by now but here it is anyway:

"Should I be worried about slavery?" This is just insulting to McCain because it paints him, as well as other people favoring a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, as not only wrong, but bigoted racists as well. Of course, if I were McCain I would have made light of the situation and jokingly said "yes."

This attack besides being smug also displays Whoopi's ignorance. First of all, the Constitution did not legalize slavery because it was already legalized in various states at the time of ratification. There was a general consensus among the founders that slavery was an issue for the states to decide. There was also a consensus that slavery was a dying institution, which is evidenced in the clause that outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in the year 1808.

Yes, Whoopi, slavery was legal in several states at the time the Consitution was ratified. Many founders did own slaves, but slavery was not legalized in the Constitution. Being a strict constituionalist does not mean that you are a racist, but it does mean that you believe that there is a limit to what the constitution will allow. Those who are strict constitutionalists do not believe that one can just imagine various rights and then use to filmest of constitutional arguments to support them. Why does The View continue to give a soap box to moronic radicals like Whoopi, Joy, and Rosie?

Lerone Bennett Is Still Preaching His Gospel of Lincoln Hatred

2008-09-16T15:03:00.016-04:00

Lerone Bennett recently gave a lecture on Abraham Lincoln's "true" legacy as a racist, hate filled demon that wished to make America a white nation. Thankfully the crowd that gathered to hear this disgusting brand of pseudo-history numbered under fifty.

The Ithaca Journal reported:

"“He was not a great emancipator, he was not a small emancipator, he was not even a regular-sized emancipator,” Bennett said, drawing laughs."

Bennett a raised the usual half-baked arguments such as this: "“The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves; the 13th Amendment to the Constitution freed the slaves. If you meet a historian in Ithaca who says the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, call the police — because you are either dealing with a charlatan or an innocent who needs to be protected from himself.”"

Yes, Mr. Bennett, the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not free any slaves. And yes it was the 13th Amendment that officially freed all the Nation's slaves. However, the proclamation gave authority to the Union Army to free any slave that they came across throughout the South. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln made emancipation the policy of the executive branch and the US military. After January 1, 1863 all Union Armies were now made into a tool of emancipation. Bennett, in his book Forced Into Glory, made a habit ignoring this fact because it did not fit the story he was trying to tell.

Bennett also ignored that many former slaves, as historian Allen Guelzo has argued, dated their freedom to the day that they heard about the proclamation. Lincoln didn't physically free the slaves, but rather most slaves freed themselves. Lincoln's proclamation, however, made sure that those who ran away to Union armies were not returned to their masters.

Bennett also made the claim that Lincoln "opposed equal rights for blacks and Latinos, and supported the deportation of all blacks living in the states. As a lawyer in Illinois, Lincoln sent runaway slaves back to slavery, he said."

Where do I start? The issue of Latino rights in 1863 was not a pressing issue because outside of Texas, California, and the lands of the Mexican Cession there were not that many Latinos living in the United States.

Lincoln was opposed to equal rights for blacks as was just about everyone else in America. Here is where I will make a concession to Bennett. Lincoln did hold some racist views, which was normal for the era. He did not think that blacks were equal to whites, but he also didn't think that they should be slaves. Lincoln also favored giving blacks the right to vote, which is what some historians believe was a deciding factor in his murder at the hands of John Wilkes Booth.

Bennett was partially correct when he argued that Lincoln wanted to deport all African Americans to Latin America or Africa. Lincoln did favor colonization for a brief time because he believed that blacks and whites would not be able to live peacefully with each other. He quickly abandoned this scheme when he was met by fierce resistance on the part of many black leaders including Frederick Douglass. Lincoln's colonization scheme was just one of many ideas that he proposed to solve the slavery problem.

I will make another concession to Bennett. Lincoln, as an Illinois lawyer, did return a slave to slavery. He hated the institution of slavery, which is generally accepted among historians, but Lincoln was also a firm believer in the supremacy of the law over personal beliefs. This was an unfortunate episode in Lincoln's law career, but it should in no way be interpreted as anything other than a dumb choice on the part of Lincoln.

Over the years, Bennett has garnered some praise for his stance on Lincoln's legacy, but those who offer this praise are usually other Lincoln hating, pseudo-historians. Bennett should not be and is not taken seriously by professional historians. He has revealed himself to be exactly what he accuses Lincoln of being: a hateful, bigoted, racist, shameful, disgusting man.

For those who want to read a much better analysis of Lincoln the emancipator, I recommend reading Allen Guelzo's Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Guelzo's book also contains a devastating critique of Bennett's 600 plus page screed, Forced into Glory.

The Lincoln Assassination Is Coming To HBO

2008-09-16T14:07:00.019-04:00

HBO is currently developing a mini-series on the Lincoln assassination, which will be based on James L. Swanson's Manhunt. This could be interesting because HBO has made some really good historical mini-series such as Band of Brothers and John Adams. Broadcasting & Cable reported:

"The project reunites the network with the creative forces behind two of its former critical hit series—Simon created The Wire and Fontana created Oz—as well as the two writers themselves. Simon and Fontana have not collaborated since Fontana turned Simon's book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets into the cop drama Homicide for NBC."

" The would-be mini comes at a time when HBO has continued to find critical and viewership success with miniseries while struggling to mount new, enduring series hits. HBO posted a less-than-spectacular open for its most recent series debut, the heavily marketed vampire drama True Blood, which attracted 1.4 million viewers to its Sept. 7 premiere. It was an anemic debut compared to recent HBO drama premieres including Big Love (4.6 million), Rome (3.8 million) and the failed John From Cincinnati (3.4 million)."

'It also comes on the heels of another HBO miniseries in the American history genre, John Adams, which enjoyed critical and viewership success, and piqued Fontana's attention."

"A history buff, Fontana's historical métier is the American Revolution and the Lincoln assassination. Fontana, in fact, grafted his Lincoln obsession onto one of his Homicide characters. Simon also possesses more than a passing interest in the Lincoln assassination."

Full article.

The last paragraph of this article is interesting. It states:

"For Simon, Lincoln's murder took on new relevancy with the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies. “People have been fascinated by the Lincoln assassination since it happened,” he says. “It's a pivotal moment in American history. The stakes were extremely high for the nation as a whole. The characters are grandly dramatic. So there would be reasons enough to be interested even if it were all an anachronism. But I don't think it is an anachronism. If you look at everything from Guantanamo to the Patriot Act to the debate over military tribunals versus civil prosecution, there's a lot of analogous stuff.”"

What?! So, they are going to use the Lincoln assassination to make a statement about the Bush Administration? Really? As someone who is training to be a historian this really angers me. One historical era or event can not be used to describe another, much later era. To compare the aftermath of the Civil War to the War on Terror is just foolish and bad historical thinking. I am guessing that the film makers want to make the argument that the Lincoln assassination led to a period of paranoia and the abuse of power on the part of the federal government. Civil liberties were trampled upon and a "nation" (the Confederacy) was occupied by an invading army which was to be challenged by heroic insurgents in bed sheets and hoods. This is stupid. I do want to see a mini-series about the Lincoln assassination get made, but I hope that the film makers do not try to play petty, partisan politics with the subject matter.

For anyone interested: About ten years ago TNT made a movie on the Lincoln assassination entitled The Day Lincoln Was Shot. The movie was based on Jim Bishop's book also titled The Day Lincoln Was Shot. The movie was OK, but pales in comparison to other Ted Turner Civil War films.

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

2008-09-14T22:36:00.001-04:00

Remembering War, Short Review

2008-09-11T20:35:00.021-04:00

Jay Winter's Remembering War is a rigorous, but interesting, examination of the collective remembrances of the Great War. This book is a far cry from most other works on World War I because it does not deal with battles, generals and politicians. Winter's main focus is on memory and remembrance. How was the war remembered? How were the participants, dead and living, memorialized? Winter argued that there have been many ways to remember the war and that it is remembered in differently among diverse groups.

Winter has drawn on 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' sources to construct a fascinating analysis of remembrance and memory. The most interesting source used by Winter is television. Television has been an important medium that has helped to influence how the Great War is remembered.

The down side of this book is that it is weighed down with theory at times. Unless the reader is familiar with postmodernist and literary theory, then he/she will may get lost from time to time.

From the publisher:

"This is a masterful volume on remembrance and war in the twentieth century. Jay Winter locates the fascination with the subject of memory within a long-term trajectory that focuses on the Great War. Images, languages, and practices that appeared during and after the two world wars focused on the need to acknowledge the victims of war and shaped the ways in which future conflicts were imagined and remembered. At the core of the “memory boom” is an array of collective meditations on war and the victims of war, Winter says."

"The book begins by tracing the origins of contemporary interest in memory, then describes practices of remembrance that have linked history and memory, particularly in the first half of the twentieth century. The author also considers “theaters of memory”—film, television, museums, and war crimes trials in which the past is seen through public representations of memories. The book concludes with reflections on the significance of these practices for the cultural history of the twentieth century as a whole."

The Foreign Policy Question

2008-09-10T09:25:00.020-04:00

This is an interesting op-ed by Fouad Ajami from the Wall Street Journal, which highlights the differences between Barack Obama's and John McCain's proposed foreign policies. Here are some excerpts:

"The candidacy of Barack Obama seems to have lost some of its luster of late, and I suspect this has something to do with large questions many Americans still harbor about his view of the dangerous world around us. Those questions were not stilled by the choice of Joe Biden as his running mate."

"To be sure, the Delaware senator is a man of unfailing decency and deep legislative experience; and his foreign policy preferences are reflective of the liberal internationalist outlook that once prevailed in the Democratic Party. To his honor and good name, Sen. Biden took a leading role in pushing for the use of American military power in the Balkans when the Muslims of Bosnia were faced with grave dangers a dozen years ago. Patriotism does not embarrass this man in the way it does so many in the liberal elite. But as Bob Woodward is the latest to remind us, it is presidents, not their understudies, who shape the destiny of nations."

"So the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise."

"Though the staging in Denver was the obligatory attempt to present the Obama Democrats as men and women of the political center, the Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of "hard" power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude."

Ajami continued:

"When we elect a president, we elect a commander in chief. This remains an imperial republic with military obligations and a military calling. That is why Eisenhower overwhelmed Stevenson, Reagan's swagger swept Carter out of office, Bush senior defeated Dukakis, etc."

"The exception was Bill Clinton, with his twin victories over two veterans of World War II. We had taken a holiday from history -- but 9/11 awakened us to history's complications. Is it any wonder that Hillary Clinton feigned the posture of a muscular American warrior, and carried the working class with her?"

"The warrior's garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama's shoulders: Mr. Obama seeks to reassure Americans that he and his supporters are heirs of Roosevelt and Kennedy; that he, too, could order soldiers to war, stand up to autocracies and rogue regimes. But the widespread skepticism about his ability to do so is warranted."

"The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush's mantra on Iran, he was to say that "no options would be off the table" when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing."

Full op-ed.

The Purpose of the Past

2008-09-10T09:05:00.011-04:00

I think it is imperative that as a history grad student I should read Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past. Here are some excerpts from historian Douglas Brinkley's L. A. Times review:

"Ever since Gordon S. Wood's "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787" was published in 1969 -- and won the prestigious Bancroft Prize -- his books have epitomized the best in American historiography. His pitch-perfect erudition is legendary. Wood's superb 1991 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," won the Pulitzer Prize. The Brown University historian is now the go-to scholar on the American Revolution, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution and the Jeffersonian era. When Wood -- impeccable in his academic scholarship, never overstating an idea or padding an anecdote -- publishes, other historians pay attention. And in his sixth book, "The Purpose of the Past," he makes it abundantly clear that postmodern historical scholarship is far too self-referential. A solid work of history, he argues, shouldn't tell readers "more about the historian than the events he or she is presumably recounting.""

""The Purpose of the Past" is a fine collection of Wood's best long-form book reviews from the New York Review of Books and the New Republic. It begins with a meditation on Garry Wills' extraordinary "Explaining America" (1981) and ends with a dissection of Robin L. Einhorn's pioneering "American Taxation, American Slavery" (2006). But Wood has added an afterword, a careful analysis of the long-term significance of each book through the lens of hindsight. You might say he is, in essence, reviewing his own reviews."

"Frequently in "The Purpose of the Past," Wood sings the praises of historians he admires (Charles Royster, "The Fabulous History of the Dismal Swamp Company"; David Hackett Fischer, "Albion's Seed"). But Wood is not a puff-job specialist: Relishing his self-anointed role as arbiter of what constitutes real history, he denigrates the work of such notable practitioners of history as Simon Schama, John Patrick Diggins and Richard K. Matthews. And while he touts the virtues of political history, he also warns against letting modern political views infect the work he loves so dearly. "I am reminded of Rebecca West's wise observation that when politics comes in the door, truth flies out the window. Historians who want to influence politics with their history writing have missed the point of the craft; they ought to run for office.""

Full review.

A Feminist For Palin

2008-09-09T08:52:00.010-04:00

This was posted on RealClearPolitics by Tammy Bruce:

"In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously."

"Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer."...

"The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism."

Bruce continued:

"Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence."

"Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic."

She went on to state:

"Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters."

"On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin."

Full article.

McCain's Speech

2008-09-05T17:21:00.003-04:00

Are the Democrats in Trouble?

2008-09-05T16:37:00.005-04:00

Are the Democrats in trouble? Dick Morris and Eileen McGann seem to think so and I do as well. It is surprising that Barack Obama has not been able to pull away from John McCain in national polls. The month of August witnessed the McCain Campaign gain momentum. The pick of Sarah Palin has seemed to energized the Republican base and many conservatives feel that they have found their Barack Obama. (Evidence of the excitement generated by Palin can be seen in the number people that watched her speech on Wednesday night: 38 million people tuned into watch Obama's acceptance speech and 37 million watched Palin) This is going to be an interesting two months.

Here's what Morris and McGann:

"The convention floor was abuzz all yesterday with the news of the CBS poll showing a dead tie (42-42) in the presidential race. And the poll, conducted through Wednesday, couldn't reflect the impact of John McCain's speech, or the full impact of Sarah Palin's late Wednesday night. It reflected opinions only after the Democrats' convention, Barack Obama's incredible speech, the Palin selection and the early, Gustav-depressed GOP gathering."

"That augers ill for the Democrats. Tonight's polling could bring evidence that the Obama candidacy is in big trouble."

"First, the GOP convention managed to disprove the central premise of the Democratic assault on McCain: that he is a clone of President Bush. The Republicans wisely marginalized Bush to a non-prime-time videotaped speech, and sprinkled disappearing dust on Dick Cheney."

"The speeches, and the very fact of the Palin designation, repudiated Washington and focused on how McCain is an agent of change - this ticket is populist, reformist, anti-establishment, grass-roots and anti-corruption."

Full article.

Drunk Girl Comments on Robert E. Lee

2008-09-04T19:38:00.006-04:00

Once again I came across another great video on Civil War Memory.

GOP Goes On The Attack

2008-09-04T19:32:00.007-04:00

These were two good speeches by Rudy Giuliani and VP candidate Sarah Palin that took the fight directly to Barack Obama.

French Propaganda Posters From World War I

2008-09-04T14:06:00.009-04:00

More On Its All Just Names and Dates

2008-09-04T09:55:00.005-04:00

I received this comment on my post on the general misunderstanding of the public in regards to what is history. Here is the comment:

“This is what I can't stand about academia. Yeah, you're smarter than a lot of people. Get off your high horse and listen to that person. They probably will tell you something incorrect or something that you already know, but they might not. By underestimating the public, you dissuade the public from entering your field. History isn't any different than other subjects- you can learn about it, to an extent, on your own. I'm not discrediting the work that you have done, I really do respect it. I aspire to become a historian- but I don't want to lose my humbleness as I work.”

Where do I start with this comment? This person clearly did not understand the point of my previous post. So I’m going to climb down off my “high horse” and clarify some things and in the meantime, hopefully, poke holes in the comment.

First of all, this is a very good example of the public’s misunderstanding of history. Well, it’s not about getting facts correct or incorrect. Though I am told some outrageous things that people believed happened in the past, this is not what historians do. But let me move away from this issue.

Next point, the post wasn’t about me underestimating the general public, but rather the public’s misunderstanding of what it is that historians do in their profession. As far as dissuading people from entering my field, well, I don’t care if the people want to enter my field or not. Just do not tell me what history is!

Now the point about history not being any different than other subjects and that anyone can learn history and they can do so on their own. I will make a concession, like other subjects, history can be learned by anybody. This point is true, but to claim that you can do so on your own, which is what I used to think, is preposterous. One can read books, like those written by David McCullough and text books, which will give a general outline about the past which can be useful, but will leave them lacking a true historical understanding of the past. There are many important things that one cannot learn by reading horrible Cokie Roberts books and other popular histories. For example, sitting around reading books will not teach a person how to properly interrogate primary sources. It will not teach someone how to read what is not written in primary sources. Cokie Roberts, David McCullough, and others will not teach someone how to construct a complex historical argument. Those authors will not even teach someone how to construct a simple argument because they tell stories and don’t debate the past.

Oh yeah, I don’t consider myself a member of academe because I feel that those how are academics have such a mortifying an acerbic disgust for the public. I don’t hate the public, but I am increasingly angered and frustrated by the public’s total lack of understanding of what it is that historians do. Besides I believe that they, academics, are not doing a thorough job writing history for the general public, which is just as maddening as this commenter. Historians should write for the public. History is for the masses, but they deserve good history. David Hackett Fischer, James McPherson, Gordon S. Wood, and Eric Foner are great examples of academics that write for the public. This is the kind of history that the public deserves.

Its All Just Names and Dates

2008-09-03T22:01:00.008-04:00

There are many things I love about being a student of history. For instance, I love engaging in debate with fellow students about the “Revolution of 1800,” which brought Thomas Jefferson to the presidency. I also greatly enjoy spending hours reading books and essays and then discussing how each historian crafted his or her argument. I could go on about all that I love about being a historian-in-training because the pleasures of this field of inquiry are boundless.

As with any other academic field, there’s plenty of bad to go along with the good. Though there are plenty of irritants within the field that annoy and anger me (postmodernism being the most infuriating), there are countless attitudes and ideas outside the field that are just as if not more irksome.

What I am talking about is a total lack of knowledge on the part of non-historians (mostly lay persons) about what historical study entails. This is maddening by itself, but when it is accompanied by a sense among non-historians that they know what history is, well, that is just unbearable. Why do non-historians, the public in particular, feel the need to lecture me on what is history? A non-lawyer would not lecture a lawyer or a law student on how to file a motion to suppress. (Though I have seen people with no training in law attempt to lecture a law student on certain legal issues) A non-medical doctor would not lecture a doctor on how best to deal with a certain ailment. So why is it acceptable for non-historians to tell me what it is that historians do and what should be considered history?

One of the many things that non-historians say that annoys me is: “It’s the past and it either happened or it didn’t.” I have been studying history and working toward becoming a professional in the field for over half a decade now and I would argue that if study of history is that simple, then I have wasted years and thousands of dollars on training in this field. This may come as a shock to non-historians, but history is not that clear cut. It is not debating whether something happened or not. One can even argue, as postmodernists do, that we cannot truly be sure whether anything has ever happened. The line of thought that leads to the idea that something either happened or it didn’t arises out sheer ignorance of the past and its students.

Another misconception, which can be coupled with the above mentioned irritant, is the notion that history is the memorization of names, dates, and facts. When people find out that I am a graduate student in a history program they inevitably say either one of two things. One: “I always liked history because I was always good at remembering names and dates.” I would also hear the opposite statement: “I hated history because I wasn’t any good at memorizing things.” Once again, if the study of history centered on the memorization of names and dates, then I have been wasting much of my life in this field of study.

When it comes time for me to explain to someone that history is not as simple as they think I am usually met with blank stares. I inform people that I’m not spending my time memorizing trivia, but rather trying to understand how and why certain events happened. I studying the past in order to understand it and then explain it to others. I tell them that much of what I do is dissecting complex arguments and trying to construct arguments of my own. This is much different than the commonly held view of historical study. So, I am not surprised at the blank stares that greet this revelation. After all, the study of history in our public school system is atrocious. History classes in public schools are structured in such a way that students are only expected to learn names and dates. Not to mention most of the history that the public consumes is written by non-professional historians like David McCullough. Now, unlike other graduate students and professors, I enjoy reading the works of popular historians including McCullough, but these books just tell a story and don’t try to understand the past. Stories are for novelists to write and not historians. I am not a proponent of injecting historical writing with useless and dense theory, but a historian should at least make an argument and then support that argument with inferences drawn from letters, diaries, newspapers, and other primary sources.

I consider myself a populist when it comes to the writing of history. I am one of the few that believes that history should be written for the masses and not for a small population of academics. However, history should be done properly and if it is not then it can be of no use to the public. I also believe that non-historians can write and should be able to write history, but they should conform to the standards that professional historians set for themselves in their study of the past. All in all, I hope the public perception of the study of history changes, but it probably will not.