In response to my post regarding Phil Orenstein's blog on tea parties legendary blogger Doug Ross writes:
>As Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have stated on a number of occasions, any attempt at forming a third party would be disastrous: it would simply split the conservative vote when, even united, the job ahead will be monumentally difficult.
We must not and can not endorse the formation of a third party. It represents suicide for the conservative movement. We must instead reshape the Republican Party behind the aegis of Liberty vs. Tyranny.
Best Regards,
Doug Ross
Doug Ross @ Journal
My response:
I disagree with Hewitt and Levin as to the lack of viability of third parties. Third parties do not win but they influence future elections. There have been quite a few examples. One was the Anti-Masonic Party which never won but was instrumental in the formation of the Whig Party, and the Whig Party (a second party) was instrumental in the formation of the Republicans. Another was the Populists, which never won but succeeded in seeing the nomination of William Jennings Bryan. Although Bryan lost in 1896, his ideas were ultimately adopted via Franklin Roosevelt. This pattern also occurred via the Progressive Party in 1912. Although the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt lost, his socialist ideas, which were similar to Bryan's, ultimately won in 1932. Thus, there is typically a multi-step process involving third parties. They do not win but the major parties adopt their ideas.
This multi-step process has to be the case with a within-party insurgency as well. The reason is that there are no Republicans capable of leading a Lockean insurgency, and the party infrastructure is missing. Either way (insurgency or third party) there will have to be a multi-year process. An in-party insurgency will require several election cycles. The Goldwater election of 1964 was an insurgency that paved the way for Reagan in 1980. Similarly, the Bourbon Democrats, the pro-gold conservative Democrats, were around after the Civil War and saw their candidate, Grover Cleveland, win in 1884.
Messers. Levin and Hewittt overstate the distinction between an in-party insurgency and a third party. Either way (insurgency or third party) Lockean Republicans have little chance in the next two presidential cycles.
Additionally, I suspect that any Republican Presidential candidate who is put up to run in '12 will be just another big government type masquerading as a small government type unless there is a radical ideological cleansing of the entire Republican Party now. But I don't see how that could happen. So in a word, the Republicans serious about ideas ought not to think about winning an election in '12. If they do, they will just get more garbage. It is better to work on two things: building a new party and destabilizing the Democrats.
To give you an idea of how bad the Bush administration was, I went to Washington in 2005 to protest the accreditation of the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), a left wing extremist body that has taken control of accrediting education schools. Rather than abolish the Department of Education, the Bush administration used the DOE as a patronage plum. But who received the patronage? Left wing extremists who supported NCATE---Many of the appointees on the board before which I spoke argued with me in favor of NCATE. So Bush appointed Lockean Republicans' enemies. It was more important to him to be able to do this than to abolish the DOE. That's how incompetent and stupid the incumbent Republicans are.
Do you really think a perpetuation of the current Republican Party is crucial? One of two things must occur in order to change: a third party or a serious insurgency. Otherwise, we will keep running around in circles forever.
Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
America Winning the War in Iraq
Hugh Hewitt blogs a NY Post article by Arthur Herman (hat tip Larwyn) that states:
>"AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
"The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).
"Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible..."
Hewitt points out that Obama has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support despite his eagerness to prove Herman wrong and to prove that America has lost. Obama does not express a pro-America game plan, but rather views defeat in Iraq as a way to prove America is a "nice" country so that terrorists will understand how nice the US is and stop being terrorists. Obama's and the left's position is foolish. General Petraeus has demonstrated that a fourth generation warfare strategy will work. The war will wind down soon without the left's and Obama's anti-American posturing.
>"AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
"The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).
"Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible..."
Hewitt points out that Obama has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support despite his eagerness to prove Herman wrong and to prove that America has lost. Obama does not express a pro-America game plan, but rather views defeat in Iraq as a way to prove America is a "nice" country so that terrorists will understand how nice the US is and stop being terrorists. Obama's and the left's position is foolish. General Petraeus has demonstrated that a fourth generation warfare strategy will work. The war will wind down soon without the left's and Obama's anti-American posturing.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Bravo Hillary!
Larwyn just forwarded a Hugh Hewitt post about the Hotline's Blogometer's coverage of the ongoing fight between Obama and Clinton. The Blogometer notes that Ariana Huffington complains that "John McCain should go on vacation, Hillary Clinton is doing his job for him."
Yay!
Yay!
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Immigration Paradox
Libertarians believe in unfettered liberty, which means that borders should not be restricted. But immigration has anti-libertarian consequences, such as increases in social security costs and lawlessness.
The first reason is that unfettered immigration lets in large numbers of potential terrorists. If tight immigration laws are enforced, there will be fewer terrorists admitted. In reducing New York City's crime rate to one of the lowest in the country Rudy Giuliani proved that if you police small offenses, larger ones become rarer. If you carefully vet immigrants, and take action against those who come here illegally, terrorists are less likely to slip through the cracks. Heather MacDonald has constructively argued that giving amnesty to illegal immigrants encourages disrespect for the law.
According to Hugh Hewitt:
"federal counterterrorism authorities say they have connected some border jumpers to terrorism. Among them was a South African woman of Middle Eastern descent whose July 2004 arrest at the McAllen airport with wet clothes, thousands in cash and a mutilated passport made international headlines."
Hewitt adds with respect to the immigration bill that:
Many terrorists and terrorist sympathizers have certainly entered the country illegally across our borders-- is an issue ignored by the bill's proponents, and when confronted with it, they attempt to argue that it would be better to get their fingerprints and legalize their work and travel around the country --and back and forth from abroad to the U.S.-- than to keep them in the position of a lawbreaker.
Lawlessness and terrorism would likely be reduced by a coherent law systematically enforced.
The second reason to be concerned about immigration is that it is likely to depress wages of those with lower incomes. Economists used to be skeptical of this kind of effect, but studies by George Borjas and others confirm that this has occurred. Markets are flexible. When immigrants came here in the 1930s and found the Great Depression, many returned to their homelands. But welfare benefits impede market flexibility. Special interest group pressure on political leaders encourages them to extend public benefits to immigrants who cannot find work. This inhibits the functioning of markets, enhancing downward pressure on low-income wages.
The problems surrounding immigration are compounded by the decline of the American educational system. In previous generations, the public schools contributed to the homogenization of the public. In several 19th century cases, German immigrants were told that they had to teach children English in school. Today, the melting pot is nearly extinguished. The politically correct multiculturalists argue that students' ethnic backgrounds should be reinforced at the expense of education about American history and culture. The result is the lack of a shared community. This will result in alienation of recent immigrant groups. Liberals ensure that immigrants will remain impoverished through incompetent, left-wing educational theories. Special interest activists who earn their keep on the sores of the poor reinforce these impulses. The result is a multiplication of sub-cultures uninterested in taking part in American culture or able to take advantage of economic opportunities here.
Gold Bug Howard S. Katz argues that America's libertarian history is one of acceptance of immigration. The libertarian heritage has been sabotaged for many decades. The institution of the Federal Reserve Bank, favorite of left-wing Republican inflationists like Irwin Stelzer at Weekly Standard, was an important step toward state control, as were the imposition of social security benefits, unemployment insurance and Medicaid. These plans increase in costs with immigration.
I would therefore argue that there is a paradox: limitations on immigration reduce government spending, increase respect for the law, reduce the threat of terrorism, hence increase freedom. In this case, a little bit more government results in much more freedom.
The first reason is that unfettered immigration lets in large numbers of potential terrorists. If tight immigration laws are enforced, there will be fewer terrorists admitted. In reducing New York City's crime rate to one of the lowest in the country Rudy Giuliani proved that if you police small offenses, larger ones become rarer. If you carefully vet immigrants, and take action against those who come here illegally, terrorists are less likely to slip through the cracks. Heather MacDonald has constructively argued that giving amnesty to illegal immigrants encourages disrespect for the law.
According to Hugh Hewitt:
"federal counterterrorism authorities say they have connected some border jumpers to terrorism. Among them was a South African woman of Middle Eastern descent whose July 2004 arrest at the McAllen airport with wet clothes, thousands in cash and a mutilated passport made international headlines."
Hewitt adds with respect to the immigration bill that:
Many terrorists and terrorist sympathizers have certainly entered the country illegally across our borders-- is an issue ignored by the bill's proponents, and when confronted with it, they attempt to argue that it would be better to get their fingerprints and legalize their work and travel around the country --and back and forth from abroad to the U.S.-- than to keep them in the position of a lawbreaker.
Lawlessness and terrorism would likely be reduced by a coherent law systematically enforced.
The second reason to be concerned about immigration is that it is likely to depress wages of those with lower incomes. Economists used to be skeptical of this kind of effect, but studies by George Borjas and others confirm that this has occurred. Markets are flexible. When immigrants came here in the 1930s and found the Great Depression, many returned to their homelands. But welfare benefits impede market flexibility. Special interest group pressure on political leaders encourages them to extend public benefits to immigrants who cannot find work. This inhibits the functioning of markets, enhancing downward pressure on low-income wages.
The problems surrounding immigration are compounded by the decline of the American educational system. In previous generations, the public schools contributed to the homogenization of the public. In several 19th century cases, German immigrants were told that they had to teach children English in school. Today, the melting pot is nearly extinguished. The politically correct multiculturalists argue that students' ethnic backgrounds should be reinforced at the expense of education about American history and culture. The result is the lack of a shared community. This will result in alienation of recent immigrant groups. Liberals ensure that immigrants will remain impoverished through incompetent, left-wing educational theories. Special interest activists who earn their keep on the sores of the poor reinforce these impulses. The result is a multiplication of sub-cultures uninterested in taking part in American culture or able to take advantage of economic opportunities here.
Gold Bug Howard S. Katz argues that America's libertarian history is one of acceptance of immigration. The libertarian heritage has been sabotaged for many decades. The institution of the Federal Reserve Bank, favorite of left-wing Republican inflationists like Irwin Stelzer at Weekly Standard, was an important step toward state control, as were the imposition of social security benefits, unemployment insurance and Medicaid. These plans increase in costs with immigration.
I would therefore argue that there is a paradox: limitations on immigration reduce government spending, increase respect for the law, reduce the threat of terrorism, hence increase freedom. In this case, a little bit more government results in much more freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
