We interrupt blogging silence to do the obvious: take note of what really went on in last night's Democratic candidate debate. Our reference point is this CNN article.
Hillary said: "The American people know where I've stood for 35 years."
SWNID explains: Yes. You were rainmaker for the Rose Law Firm. You did real estate deals in Whitewater. You managed bimbo eruptions for your philandering husband. You didn't hold public office until you moved to New York to run for a safe Senate seat. You've mouthed the objectives of the left and far left while manipulating the fringes of free enterprise to make the money that your husband couldn't make as a career politician.
Hillary said: "This is going to be one of the most important elections we've ever had in our country's history, and it is important that we have a candidate who is tested as a president who is ready to lead from day one."
SWNID asks: As important as 1788, 1860, 1864, 1916, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972? Tested how?
Hillary said: "I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and right out of the Republican playbook. . . . For [Edwards] to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America."
SWNID asks: Um, how is it personal and not about issues to say that you voted to authorize the war or to say that you work in Washington? And, um, is not the characterization of mudslinging as distinctly Republican itself a form of mudslinging?
Bill Richardson said: "It seems that John wants to start a class war. It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Sen. Clinton, with all due respect on her plan on Iraq, doesn't end the war. All I want to do is give peace a chance."
SWNID translates: Attention, nostalgic baby boomers who long for 1968: I pander to you! Attention, Hillary: I am totally nice to you and totally saying what the Angry Left wants to hear. And don't forget that I'm a Hispanic governor of a purple state and that I have the actual experience that you claim. I am your running mate!
Others: [various comments]
SWNID translates: Please, someone notice me!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Much Awaited: SWNID on Robertson and Giuliani
Busy but begged, we offer our SWNIDish judgment on the incredible event of Pat Robertson's endorsement of Our Man Rudy.
On what this says about the World's Most Embarrassing Christian now that he has chosen rightly in Our Man, we simply offer the ancient aphorism that even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.
On wider matters, our ever-optimistic heart beats faster with the thought that this event may give Our Man enough social conservative support to win the nomination while at the same time destroying Embarrassing Pat's credibility with his constituency and so eliminating his public influence and visibility.
It is too much to hope for both, but hope we will.
On what this says about the World's Most Embarrassing Christian now that he has chosen rightly in Our Man, we simply offer the ancient aphorism that even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.
On wider matters, our ever-optimistic heart beats faster with the thought that this event may give Our Man enough social conservative support to win the nomination while at the same time destroying Embarrassing Pat's credibility with his constituency and so eliminating his public influence and visibility.
It is too much to hope for both, but hope we will.
Reformation Polka
We interrupt our blogging silence to share this brilliant video, sent to us by gentle historian Rick C.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Telegraph's Top 100s
With all the objectivity of British journalists looking at America, the Telegraph offers lists of Top 100 Most Influential Conservatives in America and Top 100 Most Influential Liberals in America.
Number one on the lib list is Bill Clinton. That's indisputable.
Number one on the conservative list is Rudy. That's disputable, but we like it nevertheless.
A couple of observations:
Our sources at the Telegraph tell us that SWNID was ranked 101 on the conservative list, just missing the cut.
Number one on the lib list is Bill Clinton. That's indisputable.
Number one on the conservative list is Rudy. That's disputable, but we like it nevertheless.
A couple of observations:
- Hitchens is listed as a conservative.
- Schwartzenegger is listed as liberal.
- Lieberman is on both lists.
- Pundits appear but are generally low. We'd rank them higher, but our political activity is more reading than doing real stuff.
Our sources at the Telegraph tell us that SWNID was ranked 101 on the conservative list, just missing the cut.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
And Now the Real News: Economy Booming
Lawrence Kudlow today performs the public service of noting that GDP is way up, inflation is down, incomes are up, energy use per unit of GDP is down, and loads of other positive economic news.
You won't hear this from the MSM, who focus on sectors like housing or finance to suggest that things are awful economically. We aren't so paranoid as to think that the lefty journalists are trying to gin up discontent leading to the 08 elections. We just think that they need a story, don't really care about the bigger picture, and know that good news is no news at all.
Of course, you won't hear the Ds talk about this at all.
You won't hear this from the MSM, who focus on sectors like housing or finance to suggest that things are awful economically. We aren't so paranoid as to think that the lefty journalists are trying to gin up discontent leading to the 08 elections. We just think that they need a story, don't really care about the bigger picture, and know that good news is no news at all.
Of course, you won't hear the Ds talk about this at all.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Poll Roundup: Ds Slipping
RealClearPolitics today offers its usual excellent analysis of recent polls, including the latest Quinnipiac. The news: Ds are slipping, Rs are rising, Hillary's negatives equal her positives. And Rudy is beating Hillary again, and now Thompson beats Obama and McCain isn't a slouch in any head-to-head.
If yesterday's boys v. girl Democrat debate is any indication, the overall weakness of the Democratic field may be starting to show.
So we may see "Grand" coming back to "GOP."
If yesterday's boys v. girl Democrat debate is any indication, the overall weakness of the Democratic field may be starting to show.
So we may see "Grand" coming back to "GOP."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Our Man Again Overtakes That Woman
The latest Rasmussen poll, only about a week old, shows Rudy ahead of Hillary by 2%, well within the margin of error but the first lead any R has had over Mommie Dearest in months.
Here's a comforting line:
Here's a comforting line:
But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.
Monday, October 29, 2007
A British Take on Moore's Take on British Health
We pretty consistently ignore media mogul Michael Moore, since life is too short to waste time on political propaganda for profit. But our SWNIDish eye was drawn to the London Times column by one Minette Marin roundly criticizing Moore's Sicko for its hugely distorted, falsely positive take on the British National Health Service.
Marin details the various failures of the NHS, most of them failures that are worsening with time, which go unmentioned in Moore's latest film. Then she ends with this:
Marin details the various failures of the NHS, most of them failures that are worsening with time, which go unmentioned in Moore's latest film. Then she ends with this:
By ignoring these problems, and similar ones in France’s even more generous and expensive health service, Moore is lying about the answer to that question. I wonder whether the grotesquely fat film-maker is aware of the delicious irony that in our state-run system, the government and the NHS have been having serious public discussion about the necessity of refusing to treat people who are extremely obese.
One can only wonder why Sicko is so dishonestly biased. It must be partly down to Moore’s personal vainglory; he has cast himself as a high priest of righteous indignation, the people’s prophet, and he has an almost religious following. He’s a sort of docu-evangelist, dressed like a parody of the American man of the people, with jutting jaw, infantile questions and aggressively aligned baseball cap.
However, behind the pleasures of righteous indignation for him and his audience, there is something more sinister. There’s money in indignation, big money. It is just one of the many extreme sensations that are lucrative for journalists to whip up, along with prurience, disgust and envy. Michael Moore is not Mr Valiant-for-truth. He is Mr Worldly-wiseman, laughing behind his hand at all the gawping suckers in Vanity Fair. Don’t go to his show.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
SWNIDish Reflections: Evangelical Gloom
We recently have been preoccupied with our interactions with colleagues at other institutions of biblical higher education. In our deanish capacity, we often attend meetings at which the deanish and presidential creatures of other Bible colleges hang out to speak their minds.
And we have been wondering lately why our peers' minds seem strangely different from our own.
Some anecdotes that illustrate:
Why does SWNID (and, we believe, at least many of our Campbellite colleagues, none of whom made any of the remarks above) feel so alienated by these episodes? We expect that the answer is obvious: these comments reflect an extreme pessimism that ignores the past and the present in favor of grim prognostication. For Christians engaged in the cause of the gospel, there is nothing too good, it seems, that it can't go bad in an instant.
It's no coincidence, of course, that in these conversations, SWNID belongs to a minority of conversationalists who reject the tenets of dispensationalism, i.e. that the present "church age" is on the verge of yielding to a "tribulation" of untold awfulness for those who are, dare we say, "left behind" after the "rapture." There can be no question whatsoever that our colleagues are deeply rooted in the pessimism about the future that such a view necessarily engenders.
Of course, there's more than just dispensationalism at work in these judgments. There's also the legacy of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. In that century-old event, the shockwaves of which linger to the present, Christians who held to historic beliefs found themselves besieged by "modernists" who sought to take over institutions with dogmas shaped more by the contemporary insights of the nascent social and historical "sciences" (always more important than the natural sciences in these battles, we believe) than by Holy Writ. For many in institutions forged in those battles, the battle itself becomes the paradigm of all history: new movements are by definition suspect and are readily labeled with terms that properly refer to elements of those past battles. So, for example, "social gospel" is unchallenged as a term for those who say that the church must do well at doing good in order to win a hearing for the evangel.
SWNID, on the other hand, is ready to think other thoughts. We aren't dispensational. Neither, of course are we postmillennial, as JB in CA playfully accused us recently, thinking that things are inexorably marching toward a better future. We are amillennial. So we think that the world has been a pretty awful place for a long time and will remain so until the return of Jesus, the time of which we faithfully refuse to prognosticate. But we also think, with all the strength that our fallen but redeemed spirit can muster, that God's victory is powerfully at work in the world and that we, unworthy as we are, are blessed to participate in it.
We also tend to think that the fundamentalist-modernist controversy is not the model of all church history, any more than the present conflict between the broad tents of "conservatives" (fiscal, military, social and libertarian) and "liberals" (including socialists, populists, pacifists, and organized labor) defines every era of politics. We don't think that every new movement that "emerges" should be denounced until further notice, not least because the present shows that even the fundamentalist-modernist controversy yielded an overall victory for the orthodox side. So we are unlikely to think that someone who recommends a revision of present practices isn't by definition a wolf in sheep's clothing. We believe that when such folk speak, we have a responsibility to listen, think, and act on the best judgment that we can, informed by everything available to us but free of the suspicion that assumes monsters under the bed because you can never be too careful.
Call that outcome Christian critical, realistic, historically orthodox optimism. We think that too many Christians operate from a standpoint of fear. We keep trying to fear not.
These days, we think that this matter is what separates us from many of our non-Campbellite Bible college colleagues more than the classically definitive questions of getting in and staying in, i.e. predestination, baptism and security.
So we remain committed not to pander to or provoke the fears of our brothers and sisters. Instead, let's try to do stuff in the name of Jesus, figuring that he wins because he won already.
And we have been wondering lately why our peers' minds seem strangely different from our own.
Some anecdotes that illustrate:
- In a roundtable meeting of senior leader-types of such institutions, all acknowledge enthusiastically that in the last 20 years, regional accrediting associations have become increasingly open to Bible colleges. They acknowledge further that the regionals have done little or nothing to interfere with the beliefs or missions of their institutions. But then the conversation turns dark as one says that an "expert" tells him to expect the regionals to require his institution to hire practicing homosexuals within five years.
- In a discussion of what makes a Bible college distinct from other institutions of higher education, including Christian colleges teaching a traditional arts and sciences curriculum (what is historically labeled "liberal arts," not a term that one can utter these days without causing someone heartburn), a similar group discusses the term "missional." They show great enthusiasm for the term until one offers the bleak remark that the word has been co-opted by the "emergent church movement" to mean something "very different from what we mean," thereby destroying the commitment to the gospel of many formerly faithful churches as they promote the "social gospel." Thereafter, no one save our SWNIDish self wants to speak for the term as an apt descriptor of their institutions.
- In a meeting discussing the US Department of Education's plans for accreditation, a senior figure of the Bible college movement declares that he sees the plans of (Republican) Education Secretary Spellings as part of the inevitable progress toward one world government.
Why does SWNID (and, we believe, at least many of our Campbellite colleagues, none of whom made any of the remarks above) feel so alienated by these episodes? We expect that the answer is obvious: these comments reflect an extreme pessimism that ignores the past and the present in favor of grim prognostication. For Christians engaged in the cause of the gospel, there is nothing too good, it seems, that it can't go bad in an instant.
It's no coincidence, of course, that in these conversations, SWNID belongs to a minority of conversationalists who reject the tenets of dispensationalism, i.e. that the present "church age" is on the verge of yielding to a "tribulation" of untold awfulness for those who are, dare we say, "left behind" after the "rapture." There can be no question whatsoever that our colleagues are deeply rooted in the pessimism about the future that such a view necessarily engenders.
Of course, there's more than just dispensationalism at work in these judgments. There's also the legacy of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. In that century-old event, the shockwaves of which linger to the present, Christians who held to historic beliefs found themselves besieged by "modernists" who sought to take over institutions with dogmas shaped more by the contemporary insights of the nascent social and historical "sciences" (always more important than the natural sciences in these battles, we believe) than by Holy Writ. For many in institutions forged in those battles, the battle itself becomes the paradigm of all history: new movements are by definition suspect and are readily labeled with terms that properly refer to elements of those past battles. So, for example, "social gospel" is unchallenged as a term for those who say that the church must do well at doing good in order to win a hearing for the evangel.
SWNID, on the other hand, is ready to think other thoughts. We aren't dispensational. Neither, of course are we postmillennial, as JB in CA playfully accused us recently, thinking that things are inexorably marching toward a better future. We are amillennial. So we think that the world has been a pretty awful place for a long time and will remain so until the return of Jesus, the time of which we faithfully refuse to prognosticate. But we also think, with all the strength that our fallen but redeemed spirit can muster, that God's victory is powerfully at work in the world and that we, unworthy as we are, are blessed to participate in it.
We also tend to think that the fundamentalist-modernist controversy is not the model of all church history, any more than the present conflict between the broad tents of "conservatives" (fiscal, military, social and libertarian) and "liberals" (including socialists, populists, pacifists, and organized labor) defines every era of politics. We don't think that every new movement that "emerges" should be denounced until further notice, not least because the present shows that even the fundamentalist-modernist controversy yielded an overall victory for the orthodox side. So we are unlikely to think that someone who recommends a revision of present practices isn't by definition a wolf in sheep's clothing. We believe that when such folk speak, we have a responsibility to listen, think, and act on the best judgment that we can, informed by everything available to us but free of the suspicion that assumes monsters under the bed because you can never be too careful.
Call that outcome Christian critical, realistic, historically orthodox optimism. We think that too many Christians operate from a standpoint of fear. We keep trying to fear not.
These days, we think that this matter is what separates us from many of our non-Campbellite Bible college colleagues more than the classically definitive questions of getting in and staying in, i.e. predestination, baptism and security.
So we remain committed not to pander to or provoke the fears of our brothers and sisters. Instead, let's try to do stuff in the name of Jesus, figuring that he wins because he won already.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Krauthammer to Conservatives: Stop Whining About Candidates
We point gentle readers gratefully to the impeccable Charles Krauthammer's column that today remonstrates conservatives for complaining that they don't have any good presidential candidates this year. A quotation:
Indeed! We continue to prefer Our Man Rudy but enthusiastically affirm that we will vote enthusiastically for Romney, McCain or even the sphinx-like Thompson.
Take heart, friends! We have good frontrunners, and Pat Robertson isn't running at all.
In 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the past century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
So why all the angst?
Indeed! We continue to prefer Our Man Rudy but enthusiastically affirm that we will vote enthusiastically for Romney, McCain or even the sphinx-like Thompson.
Take heart, friends! We have good frontrunners, and Pat Robertson isn't running at all.
24 Day 7 Trailer: Apologies, Torture and More Resurrection
We tip the SWNIDish hat to gentle reader KevinK for pointing us to the "world premiere" trailer for 24 Day 7.
We observe that Kiefer begins out of character with a statement of thanks to viewers that is essentially an apology for a weak Day 6 and a promise that Day 7 will be the Greatest Day Ever (biblical allusions are assumed to be unintentional here). But as Jack, addressing the recurrent 24 theme of torture he immediately refuses to apologize: "Don't expect me to regret the decisions that I have made, because, sir, the truth is, I don't."
No wonder our Seldom-Wrong pulse quickens whenever we watch 24.
We also observe that Jack is not the only character who can rise from the dead. Tony Almeda, favorite of females in the SWNID household, returns.
We observe that Kiefer begins out of character with a statement of thanks to viewers that is essentially an apology for a weak Day 6 and a promise that Day 7 will be the Greatest Day Ever (biblical allusions are assumed to be unintentional here). But as Jack, addressing the recurrent 24 theme of torture he immediately refuses to apologize: "Don't expect me to regret the decisions that I have made, because, sir, the truth is, I don't."
No wonder our Seldom-Wrong pulse quickens whenever we watch 24.
We also observe that Jack is not the only character who can rise from the dead. Tony Almeda, favorite of females in the SWNID household, returns.
Rowling "Christian," Dumbledore "Gay": SWNID Catches Up
So J. K. Rowling has at last stated that the Christian imagery in the Harry Potter books, most obvious in book seven, is, well, deliberately Christian. And Rowling goes to church. And she describes her faith like that of Graham Greene (see The Heart of the Matter in the SWNID Fiction Club), that is, a struggle to believe.
That sounds about right. Rowling wasn't writing Christian allegory, which was obvious. And she probably couldn't if she tried, which is fine. And she's on a pilgrimage, which is at worst honest and at best an honestly more accurate self-assessment for anyone than the kind that claims to have it all together.
So the books are what they have always appeared to be: an imaginary tour de force that explores the longings of humanity for justice, redemption and love and incorporates elements drawn from That Which Answers those longings, however imperfectly the author grasps those answers (for further reflection on this issue, we recommend reading, in addition to Greene, books at left by Dostoyevski, Endo, Updike, and O'Connor).
SWNID, who believes that evocation and provocation are often more powerful than indoctrination, is happy with this outcome.
Meanwhile, others are enraged that Rowling reveals that Dumbledore was gay. His relationship with Grindelwald, it seems, involved a powerful attachment of the future headmaster with the powerful, charismatic wizard. For whatever reason, the relationship was unconsummated.
Some Christians are incensed. We're not.*
Here's the deal, brothers and sisters. Every character in Potter's world is flawed. And as the background story develops in Deathly Hallows, we realize Dumbledore's youthful attachment to Grindlewald, whatever its nature, is his undoing.
Further, per Rowling, Dumbledore never acts sexually on his attraction and, per our own observation, in the story world never makes another such attachment. In other words, he experiences same-sex attraction but doesn't act on the urge.
That's the point, and to make the point, we'll oversimplify. In itself experiencing same-sex attraction is not sin, any more than in itself experiencing the urge to have sex with a member of the opposite sex to whom one is not married is sin, or experiencing a desire to slap someone's face is a sin. It's a temptation. The sin is in what one does with the urge.
Part of the fascinating power of Rowling's books is the Dickensian richness of her palette of characterization, which is to say that every character is a full-bodied, unique, believable person. Dumbledore is but one of many, and his experience is but one of many that evokes the fallenness of all.
The hysterical Potter critic linked above worries about Christians exposing their children to a gay character. She needs to realize that her children are in contact with real "gay" characters all the time. But let's be precise and stop saying "gay." Many people experience same-sex attraction, some more commonly and more powerfully than others. Some act on it, and some don't. As a Christian, I want to support those who don't, just as I myself need support to resist the urges that lead me to sin when I give in to them. As a parent and educator, I want people to understand that there's a big difference between affirming the presence and worth of people who experience same-sex attraction and treating homosexual acts as the moral equivalent of sex in permanent, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
Dumbledore's experience is so much in the background of the Potter narrative that Christians hardly need to worry that their children will be corrupted by reading the books, any more than they should worry that the theme from Mr. Ed if played backwards sounds like "someone sang this song for Satan."
In fact, let's say the obvious: parents who think that this element of the narrative will corrupt young readers reveal thereby that they don't trust their children over time to develop critical thinking skills and don't trust the power of the gospel to overcome evil. For them, the message of God is so weak that it doesn't work in people's lives even if they hear it every day, and the message of Satan is so strong that it will overwhelm even when it is buried deep behind a fantasy narrative, so deep that the author has to tell us what was in her mind as she wrote.
Or to be blunt: Jesus wins; Satan loses. We are not called to retreat to a fortress. We are called to charge into enemy territory. It's God's world and he's taking it back. As in, "Take heart, for I have overcome the world."
_________________
*Those ready to accuse SWNID of being a relativist on homosexuality ought to read these posts as a reminder.
That sounds about right. Rowling wasn't writing Christian allegory, which was obvious. And she probably couldn't if she tried, which is fine. And she's on a pilgrimage, which is at worst honest and at best an honestly more accurate self-assessment for anyone than the kind that claims to have it all together.
So the books are what they have always appeared to be: an imaginary tour de force that explores the longings of humanity for justice, redemption and love and incorporates elements drawn from That Which Answers those longings, however imperfectly the author grasps those answers (for further reflection on this issue, we recommend reading, in addition to Greene, books at left by Dostoyevski, Endo, Updike, and O'Connor).
SWNID, who believes that evocation and provocation are often more powerful than indoctrination, is happy with this outcome.
Meanwhile, others are enraged that Rowling reveals that Dumbledore was gay. His relationship with Grindelwald, it seems, involved a powerful attachment of the future headmaster with the powerful, charismatic wizard. For whatever reason, the relationship was unconsummated.
Some Christians are incensed. We're not.*
Here's the deal, brothers and sisters. Every character in Potter's world is flawed. And as the background story develops in Deathly Hallows, we realize Dumbledore's youthful attachment to Grindlewald, whatever its nature, is his undoing.
Further, per Rowling, Dumbledore never acts sexually on his attraction and, per our own observation, in the story world never makes another such attachment. In other words, he experiences same-sex attraction but doesn't act on the urge.
That's the point, and to make the point, we'll oversimplify. In itself experiencing same-sex attraction is not sin, any more than in itself experiencing the urge to have sex with a member of the opposite sex to whom one is not married is sin, or experiencing a desire to slap someone's face is a sin. It's a temptation. The sin is in what one does with the urge.
Part of the fascinating power of Rowling's books is the Dickensian richness of her palette of characterization, which is to say that every character is a full-bodied, unique, believable person. Dumbledore is but one of many, and his experience is but one of many that evokes the fallenness of all.
The hysterical Potter critic linked above worries about Christians exposing their children to a gay character. She needs to realize that her children are in contact with real "gay" characters all the time. But let's be precise and stop saying "gay." Many people experience same-sex attraction, some more commonly and more powerfully than others. Some act on it, and some don't. As a Christian, I want to support those who don't, just as I myself need support to resist the urges that lead me to sin when I give in to them. As a parent and educator, I want people to understand that there's a big difference between affirming the presence and worth of people who experience same-sex attraction and treating homosexual acts as the moral equivalent of sex in permanent, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
Dumbledore's experience is so much in the background of the Potter narrative that Christians hardly need to worry that their children will be corrupted by reading the books, any more than they should worry that the theme from Mr. Ed if played backwards sounds like "someone sang this song for Satan."
In fact, let's say the obvious: parents who think that this element of the narrative will corrupt young readers reveal thereby that they don't trust their children over time to develop critical thinking skills and don't trust the power of the gospel to overcome evil. For them, the message of God is so weak that it doesn't work in people's lives even if they hear it every day, and the message of Satan is so strong that it will overwhelm even when it is buried deep behind a fantasy narrative, so deep that the author has to tell us what was in her mind as she wrote.
Or to be blunt: Jesus wins; Satan loses. We are not called to retreat to a fortress. We are called to charge into enemy territory. It's God's world and he's taking it back. As in, "Take heart, for I have overcome the world."
_________________
*Those ready to accuse SWNID of being a relativist on homosexuality ought to read these posts as a reminder.
Another Reality Check: Fund on Huckabee
A lot of us are lately charmed by Mike Huckabee, despite his economically disastrous views on trade, taxes and greenhouse gas regulation. Some of us conservative realists who support Our Man have contemplated him openly as 08 running mate.
WSJ's John Fund makes us think carefully about this today, noting that Huckabee is not necessarily well respected by the southern conservatives who know him best.
We grant several qualifications as we read this article. One is that anyone whom the perpetually angry Phyllis Schafly finds objectionable has our prima facie endorsement, and the Anti-Hillary characterizes Huckabee as a Judas to conservatives. Another is that in certain circles in the South (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention) the term "conservative" has become at once so extreme and so indiscriminate in its application as it make it impossible to know what members of such circles mean when they say Huckabee is no conservative.
However, Fund tempers our enthusiasm for the socially, geographically and temperamentally balanced elegance of a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket with the reality that Huckabee enthusiastically supports economic policies that would make people poorer than they are at present and the likelihood that Huckabee's positions are rooted in things other than the politically conservative intellectual tradition of Smith, Burke, Hayek, Kirk, Buckley, and Friedman.
Huckabee might not really balance Rudy's ticket, in other words. He might differently unbalance it.
WSJ's John Fund makes us think carefully about this today, noting that Huckabee is not necessarily well respected by the southern conservatives who know him best.
We grant several qualifications as we read this article. One is that anyone whom the perpetually angry Phyllis Schafly finds objectionable has our prima facie endorsement, and the Anti-Hillary characterizes Huckabee as a Judas to conservatives. Another is that in certain circles in the South (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention) the term "conservative" has become at once so extreme and so indiscriminate in its application as it make it impossible to know what members of such circles mean when they say Huckabee is no conservative.
However, Fund tempers our enthusiasm for the socially, geographically and temperamentally balanced elegance of a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket with the reality that Huckabee enthusiastically supports economic policies that would make people poorer than they are at present and the likelihood that Huckabee's positions are rooted in things other than the politically conservative intellectual tradition of Smith, Burke, Hayek, Kirk, Buckley, and Friedman.
Huckabee might not really balance Rudy's ticket, in other words. He might differently unbalance it.
Swing State FL Provides Republic with Reality Check
Our Man has been trailing That Woman in most national polls of late.
There's little wonder there. The electorate trails the news cycle by about 6 months. Recent events affirm that (a) the military is taking care of business in Iraq; (b) the Ds have no ability to govern. But voters will register this in their preferences sometime around Easter.
Nevertheless, there are leading indicators: Quinnipiac now shows Rudy leading Hillary Rodham Puffenstuff 46-43 in Florida.
Interestingly, a margin of these Rudy supporters cite disaffection from the party of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR because of its strong-arm tactics to settle when the state's presidential primary ought to be held. We assume that they realize that a party that can't govern itself won't do well with bigger responsibilities, as Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi demonstrate often.
There's little wonder there. The electorate trails the news cycle by about 6 months. Recent events affirm that (a) the military is taking care of business in Iraq; (b) the Ds have no ability to govern. But voters will register this in their preferences sometime around Easter.
Nevertheless, there are leading indicators: Quinnipiac now shows Rudy leading Hillary Rodham Puffenstuff 46-43 in Florida.
Interestingly, a margin of these Rudy supporters cite disaffection from the party of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR because of its strong-arm tactics to settle when the state's presidential primary ought to be held. We assume that they realize that a party that can't govern itself won't do well with bigger responsibilities, as Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi demonstrate often.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Right-Wing Facebook
We thank BryanD for sending us a link to the delightful parody "Right-Wing Facebook." It's also not bad as a quick summary of the state of the quest for the GOP nomination.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
How Stupid Are Voters Who Go to Church?
Bob Novak's latest is entitled "Rudy and Religion." We probably don't need to say more to induce gentle readers to follow the link and read the column, but we will offer this quotation:
So whether you agree or disagree that Social Conservatives for Giuliani (honorary chair: SWNID) should be called "Stupid Is as Stupid Does," you'll want to read Novak's take on the matter.
Giuliani's opponents tend to blame his otherwise inexplicable support from churchgoers on the veils of ignorance that in time, they say, will be lifted from the eyes of voters. That implies voters are just too stupid to know the truth about him.
So whether you agree or disagree that Social Conservatives for Giuliani (honorary chair: SWNID) should be called "Stupid Is as Stupid Does," you'll want to read Novak's take on the matter.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Buchanan Raises Alarm, SWNID Quiets Irrational Fears
Respected gentle reader and Honorary Co-Blogger JB in CA today invites our comments on a recent column by distinguished protectionist ranter and occasional third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan. In this column Buchanan does what he has done since 1988: declare the imminent fall of the sky. In this case, he is declaring the actual collapse of conservatism under Dubya.
Buchanan outlines his objections to Bushism in four points:
And the results of this, per Buchanan, are big federal deficits, the worst strategic blunder in history, a backlash against the Republican party because Americans don't want more immigrants, and a massive trade deficit, giving dollars to the Chinese to invest in American businesses.
JB ask us, why should we not be concerned?
Well, to be frank, SWNID isn't concerned.
First, on big versus small government. These are relative terms. Part of the Bush calculation is to offer a relatively smaller federal program where the body politic for a big federal program and the Ds are ready to deliver all that and more. Bush's approach to the federalization of primary and secondary education and prescription drug coverage for seniors may not have been doctrinaire conservatism, but they at least kept the reins on what could otherwise have been much worse. NCLB is largely about demanding results for money spent, and Medicare D is still largely driven by the market. Still, we'll concede a bit of unease on some parts of this.
But on the rest, we're really comfortable.
Buchanan complains that Bush's big-government binge has frittered away the federal surplus and yielded big deficits. First, let's remember that in war, countries run deficits. But then, let's get real about the deficit. It's a record only in unadjusted dollars. As a percentage of the GDP, it's currently below the average for the last 50 years.
Further, let's be honest, as Greenspan was in his recent book. In the long term, federal surpluses are worse than deficits. With surpluses, once the federal debt is paid down (and it doesn't take a lot of years of surpluses to do that, despite the size of the debt), there's nothing to do with a surplus except to spend it (making bigger government), give it back (lowering taxes, a good thing, but will anyone do it?) or invest it. That last one is what the Democrat deficit hawks want to do: let Uncle Sam decide where America's money needs to be invested. We find that unsettling. Central economic planning has a miserable record to date.
However, the notion that the best budget is a balanced federal budget ignores other economic realities. Like Adam Smith, let's use a household as an example. Who are the wiser managers of household money: the father and mother who refuse ever to borrow a penny and so live with their children in a rented apartment until they can scrape together enough to buy a house at the end of their lives, or the father and mother who buy a house with a mortgage, raise their family in it, and pay it off near the end of their lives? The answer has to do with the fact that judicious borrowing for capital expenditures is wise because the value of the capital will be realized over the time that the loan is paid off.
So it is with federal deficits. Much governmental expenditure is capital: buildings, roads, tanks, ships, planes. Borrowing for such things is wise, and that means deficit spending. So treating a surplus budget like the best kind of budget is like treating a home mortgage like an unwise thing.
On Bush's muscular Wilsonianism, we continue to applaud the notion that American power can be used to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. Iraq demonstrates that this requires wisdom and patience, that it will never go perfectly and so action must be judicious and sparing. But it doesn't disprove the value of the ideal. The idea that we could effectively advance democracy with diplomacy apart from the threat of force simply misjudges the nature of the undemocratic folk who lead the countries who need democracy. Buchanan would think that using diplomacy to advance democracy is even more ridiculous, and rightly so. But Buchanan just wants the rest of the world to ... well ... you know.
On open immigration, we insist that those nations in the present world and in history that have been most prosperous also have been most open to accepting and assimilating immigrants. Why, for example, are so many Poles living and working in Ireland right now? We think it's great to be in a country where everyone else wants to live and work, and we welcome everyone who wants to contribute to the welfare of others who live here.
On free trade, Buchanan doesn't realize the economic dogma that trade deficits are self-correcting. The weak dollar resulting from our trade deficit is a good thing, part of the cycle of correction, and will stimulate American manufacturing growth and exports. Likewise, who is worried that the Chinese are buying interests in US businesses? Their money will buy capital improvements that will increase productivity and create jobs and wealth for Americans. Their investments, their hiring of employees and their business activities will be regulated by American law. The more invested the Chinese are here, and the more we are invested there, the less likely we are to go to war with them.
SWNID is about to make an unfair judgment, which is what SWNID does best. Pat Buchanan is insecure and consequently xenophobic. He thinks that the good that we have in this country is fragile, that it must be protected or it will collapse. We think that there are people who, given the opportunity, would take stuff from us, including our lives. But America won't collapse because we buy grapes from Chile or TVs from China or because they guy who puts siding on our house came from Mexico or Ukraine. Neither will it collapse because some of our businesses are owned by folks who look different from us (BTW, the UK remains the biggest foreign investor in the US, but Buchanan doesn't use them as an example, does he?).
We do remain concerned that the electorate is unaware of these realities. But we aren't in favor of pandering to their fears. Rather, let's just keep telling the truth.
Buchanan outlines his objections to Bushism in four points:
- It is about big government instead of small-government, giving us No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.
- It is Wilsonian interventionism instead of isolationism, giving us the Iraq War.
- It is in favor of more open immigration, giving us, well, more immigrants.
- It is pro-free-trade, giving us lots of imports from countries that don't buy our stuff.
And the results of this, per Buchanan, are big federal deficits, the worst strategic blunder in history, a backlash against the Republican party because Americans don't want more immigrants, and a massive trade deficit, giving dollars to the Chinese to invest in American businesses.
JB ask us, why should we not be concerned?
Well, to be frank, SWNID isn't concerned.
First, on big versus small government. These are relative terms. Part of the Bush calculation is to offer a relatively smaller federal program where the body politic for a big federal program and the Ds are ready to deliver all that and more. Bush's approach to the federalization of primary and secondary education and prescription drug coverage for seniors may not have been doctrinaire conservatism, but they at least kept the reins on what could otherwise have been much worse. NCLB is largely about demanding results for money spent, and Medicare D is still largely driven by the market. Still, we'll concede a bit of unease on some parts of this.
But on the rest, we're really comfortable.
Buchanan complains that Bush's big-government binge has frittered away the federal surplus and yielded big deficits. First, let's remember that in war, countries run deficits. But then, let's get real about the deficit. It's a record only in unadjusted dollars. As a percentage of the GDP, it's currently below the average for the last 50 years.
Further, let's be honest, as Greenspan was in his recent book. In the long term, federal surpluses are worse than deficits. With surpluses, once the federal debt is paid down (and it doesn't take a lot of years of surpluses to do that, despite the size of the debt), there's nothing to do with a surplus except to spend it (making bigger government), give it back (lowering taxes, a good thing, but will anyone do it?) or invest it. That last one is what the Democrat deficit hawks want to do: let Uncle Sam decide where America's money needs to be invested. We find that unsettling. Central economic planning has a miserable record to date.
However, the notion that the best budget is a balanced federal budget ignores other economic realities. Like Adam Smith, let's use a household as an example. Who are the wiser managers of household money: the father and mother who refuse ever to borrow a penny and so live with their children in a rented apartment until they can scrape together enough to buy a house at the end of their lives, or the father and mother who buy a house with a mortgage, raise their family in it, and pay it off near the end of their lives? The answer has to do with the fact that judicious borrowing for capital expenditures is wise because the value of the capital will be realized over the time that the loan is paid off.
So it is with federal deficits. Much governmental expenditure is capital: buildings, roads, tanks, ships, planes. Borrowing for such things is wise, and that means deficit spending. So treating a surplus budget like the best kind of budget is like treating a home mortgage like an unwise thing.
On Bush's muscular Wilsonianism, we continue to applaud the notion that American power can be used to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. Iraq demonstrates that this requires wisdom and patience, that it will never go perfectly and so action must be judicious and sparing. But it doesn't disprove the value of the ideal. The idea that we could effectively advance democracy with diplomacy apart from the threat of force simply misjudges the nature of the undemocratic folk who lead the countries who need democracy. Buchanan would think that using diplomacy to advance democracy is even more ridiculous, and rightly so. But Buchanan just wants the rest of the world to ... well ... you know.
On open immigration, we insist that those nations in the present world and in history that have been most prosperous also have been most open to accepting and assimilating immigrants. Why, for example, are so many Poles living and working in Ireland right now? We think it's great to be in a country where everyone else wants to live and work, and we welcome everyone who wants to contribute to the welfare of others who live here.
On free trade, Buchanan doesn't realize the economic dogma that trade deficits are self-correcting. The weak dollar resulting from our trade deficit is a good thing, part of the cycle of correction, and will stimulate American manufacturing growth and exports. Likewise, who is worried that the Chinese are buying interests in US businesses? Their money will buy capital improvements that will increase productivity and create jobs and wealth for Americans. Their investments, their hiring of employees and their business activities will be regulated by American law. The more invested the Chinese are here, and the more we are invested there, the less likely we are to go to war with them.
SWNID is about to make an unfair judgment, which is what SWNID does best. Pat Buchanan is insecure and consequently xenophobic. He thinks that the good that we have in this country is fragile, that it must be protected or it will collapse. We think that there are people who, given the opportunity, would take stuff from us, including our lives. But America won't collapse because we buy grapes from Chile or TVs from China or because they guy who puts siding on our house came from Mexico or Ukraine. Neither will it collapse because some of our businesses are owned by folks who look different from us (BTW, the UK remains the biggest foreign investor in the US, but Buchanan doesn't use them as an example, does he?).
We do remain concerned that the electorate is unaware of these realities. But we aren't in favor of pandering to their fears. Rather, let's just keep telling the truth.
Guthrie Right, Campolo Deaf but Not Mute
Check out the exchange at Christianity Today between CT editor Stan Guthrie and evangelical bad boy Tony Campolo.
Guthrie is essentially accusing Campolo of posturing with his recent "Red Letter Christians" tag, asserting that concern for justice means being on the left but then acting as if the whole thing is nonpartisan.
Campolo replays his usual rhetoric that ignores the obvious point Guthrie makes.
Furthermore, Campolo shows himself a poor theologian to boot. Note how he sets up Jesus as the adversary of Moses. This is simply a poor reading of the Hebrew Bible, not to mention a poor reading of the New Testament. We'd say more, but we talk about this so much in class that we expect many readers of this blog, being current and former students, can fill in the blanks.
Here's Guthrie's most excellent closing observation:
We most heartily agree.
Please, Dr. Campolo, Jim Wallis and all who act as if Christianity and pacifistic socialism are identical: quit claiming to love Jesus more than Christians who support free markets, small government and just war. It's just possible that socialism impoverishes and pacifism kills.
Guthrie is essentially accusing Campolo of posturing with his recent "Red Letter Christians" tag, asserting that concern for justice means being on the left but then acting as if the whole thing is nonpartisan.
Campolo replays his usual rhetoric that ignores the obvious point Guthrie makes.
Furthermore, Campolo shows himself a poor theologian to boot. Note how he sets up Jesus as the adversary of Moses. This is simply a poor reading of the Hebrew Bible, not to mention a poor reading of the New Testament. We'd say more, but we talk about this so much in class that we expect many readers of this blog, being current and former students, can fill in the blanks.
Here's Guthrie's most excellent closing observation:
How we vote as Christians may differ, and that's okay. But let's not insist that we are somehow above the political fray. That is just the kind of sophistry the Lord warned against.
We most heartily agree.
Please, Dr. Campolo, Jim Wallis and all who act as if Christianity and pacifistic socialism are identical: quit claiming to love Jesus more than Christians who support free markets, small government and just war. It's just possible that socialism impoverishes and pacifism kills.
Gore Lies, Wins the Nobel Prize
We hate to be as indiscreet as the title to this posting, but recent events call for frank speech.
On Wednesday a British judge ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in Britain's secondary schools only if students were first warned that the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."
Today the Nobel Prize Committee announced that Gore would share the Nobel Peace Prize with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Nobel Peace Prize is now officially the equivalent of a championship awarded by World Wrestling Entertainment. And the British High Court is officially the last bastion of common sense in Europe, save maybe the brain of Nicholas Sarkozy.
We would make comparison to the charge that Dubya lied about WMD, but it's simply too obvious to bother.
On Wednesday a British judge ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in Britain's secondary schools only if students were first warned that the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."
Today the Nobel Prize Committee announced that Gore would share the Nobel Peace Prize with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Nobel Peace Prize is now officially the equivalent of a championship awarded by World Wrestling Entertainment. And the British High Court is officially the last bastion of common sense in Europe, save maybe the brain of Nicholas Sarkozy.
We would make comparison to the charge that Dubya lied about WMD, but it's simply too obvious to bother.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Limbaugh: Dems Will Deep-Six Iraq Issue
Today we do something we have never done before: provide a link to the extremely talented, perpetually amusing, continually controversial recovering drug abuser, cigar aficionado, serial monogamist and iconic conservative radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, the Charlie Parker of his genre.
Say what you will about Rush (and we'll say his radio show is a shadow of its former self, rather like Garrison Keillor's, who will really appreciate our mentioning him in the same sentence as Limbaugh), he's got impressive political instincts. That's why his observation is so provocative that the Dems have already decided to "move on" from Iraq as an election issue. With everyone but Bill Richardson, who has as much chance of the nomination as SWNID has of the Nobel Prize for literature, admitting that troops will remain in Iraq for at least another five years (only a tenth of our tenure in Korea, of course), it appears that Dems will only bring up Iraq long enough to feed the expectations of their hard left base.
What this may well mean is that the 2008 election will be fought on terms closer to 2000 than 2004, namely the difference between center-left economic interventionism and center-right economic libertarianism, with a side-dish of red meat about social issues for the party faithful. The difference, however, will be that in 2000 voters were tired of the Ds, while in 2008 they're tired of the Rs.
In that respect, the upcoming election may most closely resemble 1992. Which is why Rs need a candidate who will shake up the party's status quo. Which is why we support [fill in rest of paragraph from memory].
Say what you will about Rush (and we'll say his radio show is a shadow of its former self, rather like Garrison Keillor's, who will really appreciate our mentioning him in the same sentence as Limbaugh), he's got impressive political instincts. That's why his observation is so provocative that the Dems have already decided to "move on" from Iraq as an election issue. With everyone but Bill Richardson, who has as much chance of the nomination as SWNID has of the Nobel Prize for literature, admitting that troops will remain in Iraq for at least another five years (only a tenth of our tenure in Korea, of course), it appears that Dems will only bring up Iraq long enough to feed the expectations of their hard left base.
What this may well mean is that the 2008 election will be fought on terms closer to 2000 than 2004, namely the difference between center-left economic interventionism and center-right economic libertarianism, with a side-dish of red meat about social issues for the party faithful. The difference, however, will be that in 2000 voters were tired of the Ds, while in 2008 they're tired of the Rs.
In that respect, the upcoming election may most closely resemble 1992. Which is why Rs need a candidate who will shake up the party's status quo. Which is why we support [fill in rest of paragraph from memory].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)