Month: November 2010

I think it's safe to say that American and British conservatism have not been this far apart in decades. Michael Goldfarb (not the neo-fascist propagandist) outlines some of the core differences. One is that the Tories are not phony fiscal conservatives:

Structural deficit reduction – double quick, inside four years – is the goal of Prime Minister David Cameron's government. American conservatives would say deficit reduction is our goal as well. But British Conservatives are putting up taxes, to get the deficit down, as well as making cuts to government spending across all departments except one: the National Health Service. Republicans want to repeal health legislation, Conservatives know they would not have been returned to office without Mr Cameron's eloquent commitment to the NHS.

The key word here is the very first one: "structural". The GOP, fresh from its Tea Party victory, has no plan at all for structural deficit reduction in this Congress. They are relying on gimmicks – like the earmark ban – to make it seem as if they are serious about debt reduction. But all they are really serious about is destroying the Obama presidency. Then there's the authoritarian nature of today's Southern-dominated GOP:

Perhaps the most profound difference today between British and American Conservatives is in the response to terrorism. British Conservatives are libertarian in striking the balance between security and personal liberty when it comes to living in a world where al-Qaeda operates.

They have stopped funding for national ID cards – an expensive programme of the Labour government – and shut down many of Britain's CCTV cameras. Critically, they are considering repealing Britain's 28-day detention law for terror suspects. This law allows police to hold those suspected of plotting terrorism for 28 days without charging them. No other Western democracy gives the police this kind of power.

Republicans have been against shutting down Guantanamo and trying those detained there in civilian courts. I cannot see them renouncing a law allowing police to detain a suspect for a month without charge.

Unlike Margaret Thatcher, British Conservatives no longer echo Ronald Reagan's view that government is the problem not the solution.

But the important point is this: Mrs Thatcher and Mr Reagan shared a governing philosophy: ideology and pragmatism. Ideology was great for speech-making and letting people know what you thought, pragmatism was necessary for governing. As American and British Conservatives drift apart, like Gondwana and Pangaea, it seems that American Republicans have let go of their pragmatic inheritance.

Without pragmatic respect for what previous governments have done, can they really be considered "conservative" in the true meaning of the term?

There is, of course, close to nothing "conservative" about the ideological fanatics now dancing to the tune of polarizing pontificators on talk radio and Fox.

Erbil, Iraq, 8.24 am

''Our problems are worsening at a rate of $8 billion a day — so earmarks represent basically two days of our problem. It's almost impossible for people to comprehend. When I talk even to sophisticated audiences and try to clue them in, they react like kids being told a bedtime story. They want to know, 'Where's the happy ending?' '' – congressman Jim Cooper, of Tennessee.

A bit like the Bridge to Nowhere. Chapter and verse over at Corn’s. I still marvel at her answer to a question about the bank bailout in the Couric interview. Here it is:

That’s why I say, I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in, where it is the taxpayers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy—helping the—Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track… And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

No, that’s not Tina Fey. That’s the next president if we do nothing.

A Pee-wee special collection:

Money quote from Levi's sister, Tripp Palin's aunt, on the provenance of Trig:

If indeed they did fake the pregnancy, adopt, or switch a baby, well then that makes her the most evil and manipulative woman I have ever come across. But right now I still have no good reason to doubt that Sarah is the biological mother of Trig.

However, I do question why she has NEVER provided any proof to put the rumors to rest. I realize she is not obligated to do so, but why not shut everybody up? And then recently I heard that she gave the wrong location for his birth. How could she forget that he was born in Wasilla?

There are many unanswered questions, and I am sorry I cannot answer all of them for you. Believe me, I wish I could. It never occurred to me that there would ever be this level of speculation or I would have paid a lot more attention back then.

One thing Mercede is certain about is that Trig is not Bristol's son. But her point remains: why has Palin refused point-blank to provide any of the mounds of evidence she must have to put this story to bed?

Boris Johnson is a total Tory and an old friend from college days. In a piece in the conservative Daily Telegraph, he advises George W. Bush not to bring his book tour to Britain, because he could face arrest as a war criminal:

“Waterboarding” is a disgusting practice by which the victim is deliberately made to think that he is drowning. It is not some cunning new psych-ops technique conceived by the CIA. It has been used in the dungeons of dictators for centuries. It is not compatible either with the US constitution or the UN convention against torture. It is deemed to be torture in this country, and above all there is no evidence whatever that it has ever succeeded in doing what Mr Bush claimed. It does not work.

How could America complain to the Burmese generals about the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, when a president authorised torture? How can we talk about human rights in Beijing, when our number one ally and friend seems to be defending this kind of behaviour? I can’t think of any other American president, in my lifetime, who would have spoken in this way. Mr Bush should have remembered the words of the great Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said in 1863 that “military necessity does not admit of cruelty”. Damn right.

It's good to be reminded of real conservative values, which include abhorrence of torture and a dedication to the rule of law. By those standards, George W. Bush is not now a conservative, merely a thug, twisting the law to engage in something utterly alien to Anglo-American ideals. And a smug thug at that. Watching his interview on Hannity – yes, I managed to get through most of it – I was reminded of this man's utter shallowness and moral unseriousness. Glib doesn't begin to describe his solipsistic denial of his own barbarism.

A reader writes:

I have to call you out for calling out Willow.

What she said was disgusting, but kids say disgusting things.  Her parents and her sister may have chosen to make themselves public figures, but she has not.  Unless any random teen's use of an epithet – even in a public space such as Facebook – merits the same public scrutiny from adults, you should leave Willow alone.  She's her mother's daughter, not her mother.

I will leave these people alone when their mother stops parading them as political props. Another writes:

It seems that the spin on the Willow Palin Facebook incident is, "Well, teens talk like this". However, if you take both Willow and Bristol's comments at face value and combine that with the video of the Palin kid berating the woman who hung up the anti-Sarah banner on her own property, an ugly picture surfaces. Like their mother, the Palin kids appear to have a careening sense of entitlement and a willingness to berate anyone within earshot about their unearned privilege. For such allegedly salt-of-the-earth people, the Palins must have strained shoulders from all the times they've patted themselves on the back in public.

Can you imagine the 24/7 media firestorm if Obama's kids had done even a fraction of what the Palin kids have done?

Another asks:

What would have happened had Willow called her classmate a "retard"?

In a recent move, the LDS church has moved from the Protestant notion of homosexuality as inherently sinful and curable to a focus on the sinfulness of sexual acts and the equal role celibate homosexuals can play in church life. They have also come out against "reparative therapy." They have even removed the previous teaching that homosexuality somehow "distorts loving relationships." These are all small, but important changes. And the LDS deserves credit for making them.

Nate Silver compares favorables:

The average score for Ms. Pelosi was 30 percent favorable and 55 percent unfavorable, giving her a net favorability rating of negative-25. This was the worst score of any politician in the study by some margin. Others with substantially net negative scores included Dick Cheney (-17), Harry Reid (-16), Sarah Palin (-14), Newt Gingrich (-10) and George W. Bush (-9; his numbers have improved some), but Ms. Pelosi’s scores were somewhat worse over all.