He is Risen!

Luke 24 - 1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.   

Still Separate But Equal?

I was reading this post by Scott Johnson of Power Line this morning and came to this paragraph, which, if you have never heard this argument before, may shock you:

[Andrew Kull's The Colorblind Constitution] is full of surprises. For example, Kull devotes two chapters to the separate but equal doctrine approved by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The case represents the bygone era of Jim Crow, yet at the outset of his discussion of the case Professor Kull makes this astounding observation: “The majority opinion in Plessy makes a comfortable target, and it is routinely vilified. But in its broad holding, as opposed to its particular application, Plessy has never been overruled, even by implication. On the contrary, it announced what has remained ever since the stated view of a majority of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of laws that classify by race.”

On this subject I would highly recommend Edward Erler's essay "Still Separate But Equal."  Here is a sample:

If the central principle of the Declaration is true, that "all men are created equal," then it necessarily follows that among human beings there are no natural rulers and thus no man can be ruled without his consent. It also follows that in the absence of natural rulers each individual is possessed of the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights necessarily belong to individuals because they are inherent in the principles of human nature, the first principle of which is natural human equality. Equal protection of the laws means first and foremost that every individual is guaranteed the equal protection of equal rights. The idea of man as it appears in the Declaration has no color or race. From the point of view of the Declaration, race is an accidental, not an essential feature of human nature; and the rule of law, whatever else it may entail, prohibits arbitrariness in its classifications. Since race is an arbitrary category, it is excluded ipso facto by the rule of law and equal protection of the laws. Justice John Marshall Harlan's justly celebrated dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), with its invocation of a "colorblind" Constitution, was perfectly consistent with the central principle of the Declaration and the 14th Amendment.

Rights and Rands

This is why although I like Ayn Rand in small doses, in no way do I subscribe to her entire philosophy:

Ayn Rand was no fan of C.S. Lewis. She called the famous apologist an “abysmal bastard,” a “monstrosity,” a “cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-meta­physical mediocrity,” a “pickpocket of concepts,” and a “God-damn, beaten mystic.” (I suspect Lewis would have particularly relished the last of these.)

Also, remember during the past presidential campaign when liberals were trying to tar Paul Ryan as a Randian, marching in lockstep with her atheistic philosophy.  Ryan said that although he found Rand to have some decent teachings, he rejected her teaching in whole.  He looked instead to Thomas Aquinas, a far superior teacher.

The Heart of the Matter

John Eastman gets to the heart of the matter regarding the marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court in a clear, consise way:

There once was a day when the Court seemed capable of making such moral judgments [as the Court denied it could do in Lawrence v. Texas]. In upholding a congressional ban on polygamy, for example, it described the family as "springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement." Alas, the current Court, or at least a majority of the Court, seems unwilling to entertain any moral arguments. Indeed, inLawrence v. Texas, the Court held that the moral convictions of the people were not even a legitimate basis for governmental action, and the odds that it would reverse course in the current cases are extremely slim. But the Court need not make a moral judgment to resolve these cases. Rather, it need simply recognize that, as a matter of basic biology, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are simply not "similarly situated" with respect to their procreative abilities. As long as procreation and the rearing of the children that result from the unique biological complementarity of the sexes remains one of the core purposes of marriage, it is no violation of equal protection to treat differently those relationships that are, in their nature, different with respect to that fundamental purpose. The revival of the lost art of moral reasoning in our Courts must wait for a more substantial re-founding of our jurisprudence—for now, the Court can and should take this modest first step.

Very well said.

Living Constitutionalism: A Case Study

In reading Ed Whelan's parsing of the transcripts of today's hearing in Hollingsworth v. Perry, he points out a section that should be a stark reminder of the true basis of liberal jurisprudence (that is, living constitutionalism).  Justice Scalia was in the middle of a back and forth with Ted Olson, who is representing the side wishing to overturn California's Proposition 8, when he asked Olson to state just exactly when it had become unconstitutional to claim that marriage does not include members of the same sex:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -­ as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in
is an evolutionary cycle. 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to decide a case, then -­

Sounds like a constitutional republic to me....

Remember When...

...Barack Obama said this when the law that would eventually be known as Obamacare passed through the Senate Health Committee:

"(The committee) has produced a proposal that will finally lower health care costs, provide better care for patients, and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry," Obama said in a statement. 

"No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition. No longer will Americans have to worry about their health insurance if they lose their job, change their job, or open a new business," he said.

A story from Yahoo! News today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated. 

That's likely to increase premiums for at least some Americans buying individual plans. (Emphasis added.)

Hmmm....

Gaining Speed

From Andrew Johnson at NRO:

With the Supreme Court set to hear two cases on the issue of same-sex marriage this week, Republican strategist Karl Rove told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “I could” see the Republican party’s next presidential candidate supporting same-sex marriage. This comes on the heels of Ohio’s Republican senator Rob Portman’s recent support of the issue. 

Rove also said that he could easily see the justices opting to give the power to decide to the states, citing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe v. Wade that the Court should not have imposed one national view. He saw the potential for a 6-3 decision from the justices on granting it to the states, and even projected as high as 8-1.

I hear a train whistle in the distance.

Marriage Laws and Federalism

With two cases being heard in the Supreme Court next week--Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is on the appeal of Proposition 8 in California, and U.S. v. Windsor, which concerns the constitutionality of one section of DOMA--it is well worth it to think again about federalism and the meaning of marriage in regards to the law--whether it be on the state or federal level--in this country.  Hadley Arkes has a great essay on just that, and I would highly recommend reading the whole thing.  Here are the highlights, beginning with why DOMA was passed in the first place:

The crisis sprang upon us in 1993, when the Supreme Court of Hawaii invoked the Equal Rights Amendment of that State and confirmed what the opponents of the national ERA had argued in the 1970's: that a constitutional provision barring discriminations based on sex would be used to strike down the traditional laws on marriage and install same-sex marriage. This case of Baehr v. Lewin administered a jolt to the people of Hawaii and spurred moves in the legislature to counter that decision. Eventually these moves culminated in the passage of a constitutional amendment to reserve marriage as a relation between a man and a woman. 

But with the decision hanging out there in Hawaii, there was the serious concern that one State could install same-sex and then go on to "nationalize" same-sex marriage for the country as a whole on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV, Sec 1). That is the clause leading us to expect that the marriage validly performed in one State would be respected in another. Already we were hearing of ads placed in gay newspapers: Come to Hawaii for a vacation, get married, and take your marriage back home to Connecticut. That decision in Hawaii could be taken then as the first current carrying the problem. The second one hit in 1995 with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans. The reigning understanding has been that a State could refuse to credit a marriage coming in from another State if the receiving State had, incorporated in its laws, an objection to this form of marriage. We saw this at work of course with interracial marriages. But now the Court, in Romer, was knocking out that prop. 

The voters of Colorado had amended their Constitution to hold that

Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

The move was meant to undercut those laws enacted in different cities to bar discriminations against gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians were not put beyond the protection of the laws (as Justice Scalia pointed out). They were just not to be treated as "victims" on the same plane as the victims recognized in the other statutes dealing with discrimination, say, on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or sex. To put it another way, people would be left free to honor their own judgments about the morality of the homosexual life in their private enclaves. If people wished to have a gay bar, in which straights or even women were not welcome, they would be free to have them. And at the same time, people would not be threatened with penalties if they gave pamphlets on psychotherapy to their gay employees, or refused to rent rooms in their houses to homosexual couples. 

With Justice Kennedy writing, the Supreme Court struck down that move by the voters in Colorado to amend their constitution. The decisive line in his opinion would carry through to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and provide the very ground of the challenge now to the Defense of Marriage Act. The key line was that any objection to the homosexual life could be explained only as a result of an irrational "animus" or blind hatred. In other words, it was no longer tenable for a State to incorporate in its laws a moral objection to the homosexual life. And therefore—as the argument will run today—any refusal on the part of the State to credit a same-sex marriage coming in from another State would have to be regarded as based on an irrational animus with no "rational" ground to support it. 

And that is what brought forth DOMA. For some of us could see, as Edmund Burke would say, "a hurricane in a cloud no bigger than a hand at the very edge of the horizon." We could see that something larger was building. We wanted the Congress to take up that mandate again of the political branches in giving a lead to the courts on a constitutional matter. After all, the matter became, inescapably, a "federal" matter when litigants would come into federal courts, invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. They depended on the federal Constitution to spread same-sex marriage to other States, and so the question would have to fall to the institutions that could pronounce on the meaning of the Constitution and the federal laws.

It seems that those conservatives and libertarians who have been arguing for the unconstitutionality of DOMA (i.e., George Will) and simply wish for marriage to be confined to the states are behind the times.

Engaging friends of ours have put forth arguments [on the unconstitutionality of DOMA] that are at least interesting, and for all we know, may also be true. In any case, a serious argument deserves to be heard and seriously measured. But what I hope we would not lose from sight is the awareness of that purpose that brought forth DOMA. And what our friends should be obliged to tell us is this: If DOMA goes, what in fact keeps one State from nationalizing same-sex marriage? The matter cannot be left any longer entirely in the hands of the States because the Supreme Court, this branch of the federal government, has already intervened with Romer v. Evans and undercut the authority of the State to refuse to accept the same-sex marriages coming in from other places. Behind all of these arguments is the ultimate question of whether we are seeking to preserve marriage or whether we are willing to treat with indifference its dismantling by the courts. If DOMA is faulty as an instrument, would a measure more deftly drawn accomplish the same end in a more defensible way? If marriage as we know it cannot be defended without running afoul of the Constitution, does that mark, for the critics, a serious moral fault in marriage itself? Or do they earnestly think that something in the Constitution itself inhibits the defense of marriage?

As Arkes maintains, the issue became federalized by the proponents of same sex marriage in the early 90's.  DOMA was itself a federalism measure designed to keep in tact the laws of the other states as well as laws on the federal books concerning the definition of marriage.

Calhoun's Ghost, Pt. II

In a post a little over a month ago, I focused on Sam Tanenhaus's long essay in The New Republic entitled "Original Sin:  Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people," that ties the modern Republican Party back to the political philosophy of John C. Calhoun.  In that essay Tanenhaus said

This is not to say conservatives today share Calhoun's ideas about race. It is to say instead that the Calhoun revival, based on his complex theories of constitutional democracy, became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.

But in the course of his argument, Tanenhaus leaves one wondering about that claim with lines like this:

It is not a coincidence that the resurgence of nullification is happening while our first African American president is in office.

In any case, Ken Masugi recorded his own thoughts a few days ago on Tanenhaus's claims and the responses from the Right thus far in a post cleverly entitled "Crisis of the Calhoun United."  Here is Tanenhaus's real project, according to Masugi:

Tanenhaus implies that the Republicans have seceded from America itself. For him the Tea Party, among other conservatives, is not about the Declaration of Independence and its constitutionalism but rather about what he derides as the “politics of frustration and rage”—as if the disputed election of 2000 did not elicit such passions on both sides.[i] The right’s problem cannot be resolved by policy debates but rather by psychological analysis. Tanenhaus is as ruthless (and clever) as FDR was in attempting to isolate and demonize Republicans as Tories and fascists.

And on the response to Tanenhaus's essay by Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru in a recent issue of National Review:

They convincingly show that Tanenhaus has “wildly exaggerated” Calhoun’s influence on the early (and certainly the present) National Review, the journal they write for....

But Masugi says that Jonah and Ramesh miss something with their take on from where they think Tanenhaus took his bearings on Calhoun.  I will first quote the pertinent section from their essay:

We suspect that an intramural disagreement among conservatives has confused Tanenhaus about Calhoun’s influence. For many years a group of conservative scholars led by the brilliant Harry Jaffa have contended that the Constitution must be read in light of the moral principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is a powerful argument even if not all of the implications Jaffa and his students draw from it are convincing. In his more recent and polemical works, unfortunately, Jaffa has often claimed that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of his theory is thereby taking Calhoun’s premises on board. If you didn’t believe in natural law, you were a Calhounist. If you placed more weight on the sovereignty of the states than on the powers of the federal government? Calhounist. Kendall, who perfunctorily dismissed Calhoun as a “man I cannot do business with”? Obviously a Calhounist, doubtless operating under deep cover. 

Reviewing Jaffa’s Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution, Robert Bork tried to count up all of Jaffa’s enemies: “Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, Edwin Meese, Russell Kirk, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., William Rehnquist, and, I rejoice to say, given the company to which I am assigned, me.” Bork added, “It turns out, for reasons that are not entirely clear, that most of us are disciples of the late, unlamented John C. Calhoun.” Bork ran afoul of Jaffa by arguing that it was not necessary to advert to the principles of the Declaration to see that Dred Scott was wrongly decided; the text of the Constitution was enough. 

While Tanenhaus does not mention Jaffa, he seems to have exaggerated Jaffa’s insults. If that is what happened, one irony is that Jaffa’s views have largely prevailed among mainstream conservative intellectuals, who are far more Lincolnian in their thinking about the Declaration than they were before he began writing. (Jaffa may not be willing to accept the credit: Buckley once quipped that if you thought disagreeing with Jaffa was hard, try agreeing with him.) In short, Jaffa issued an incidental and gratuitous smear against rival conservatives, and Tanenhaus has made the incidental central and the gratuitous fundamental in constructing a political smear against all conservatives.

But I concur with Masugi's main point here on what Jaffa was (and still is God bless him) trying to do with his attacks on his fellow conservatives throughout the past decades:

But Jaffa is no amoral arms dealer, merely out to make a buck in his own cause. His assaults on leading conservatives (e.g., Justice Scalia) are intended to show how they share the fundamental premises of their liberal opponents. The reductio ad Calhounum applies to left and right alike. For Jaffa, Calhounism is the “original sin” of both contemporary conservatism and liberalism, just as Rousseau informs both. 

Jaffa’s Calhoun is the evil genius who sought to undermine the central teaching of the American founding, the human equality that leads to the social compact. And the social contract leads to limited government. Unlike Jefferson, who thought that states might better protect natural rights than the national government, Calhoun banished natural rights from politics. He did this under the guise of his “concurrent majority,” which he promoted as a means of guaranteeing consensus in politics and moderating extremes. And with the end of natural rights, there is no right to revolution and therewith no limited government. It is fitting that a political philosophy which tolerates slavery would point to unlimited government. Both Tanenhaus and his thoughtful NR critics were too hasty to jump to race as the most egregious symptom of contemporary Calhounism, when in fact it is unlimited government. [iv] This follows from Calhoun’s notion of unlimited sovereignty, which in turn followed from his assumption of historical development, culminating in a superior race. “In Calhoun’s worldview,” Jaffa succinctly states, “right is founded on might….”

Very interesting stuff to think about--not only as a philosophical exercise but as a practical matter as well.

Evil

This is horrible:

[Dr. Kermit] Gosnell is charged in the drug overdose death of a 41-year-old patient and the deaths of seven babies allegedly born alive at his West Philadelphia clinic. The death-penalty trial began Monday and is expected to last about two months. He has pleaded not guilty.

[...] 

In graphic testimony this week, the jury heard from a former employee who admitted killing 10 babies and a woman hospitalized after a botched abortion when she was 17. Prosecutors allege the woman was about 30 weeks pregnant - well beyond the 24-week legal limit - and that her baby was born alive.

Mark Styen notes the seeming attempt by the AP, the news wire from which the story above came, and other MSM sources to, no doubt in an effort to remain "neutral," gloss over the actual events taking place at "Doctor" Gosnell's "clinic":

...the New York Times’ only story on the case is punctilious enough to refer to Gosnell’s victims as “viable fetuses,” and its early paragraphs emphasize the defense’s wearily predictable line that this is a “racist prosecution.”

This is great analysis:

...what about Sandy Hook? One solitary act of mass infanticide by a mentally-ill loner calls into question the constitutional right to guns, but a sustained conveyor belt of infanticide by an entire cadre of cold-blooded killers apparently has no implications for the constitutional right to abortion.

It's appalling to see how the MSM, together with the political class, has tried to shape the minds of Americans on abortion.  But luckily, Americans, in the face of these impediments, have been souring on abortion for quite a while.  What once looked inevitable in the late 70s now seems to be swinging the other direction.

The True Heir

If you needed it, even more evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas is the true heir of the civil rights tradition of Frederick Douglass:

Consider his role in the 2003 case Virginia v. Black, which involved a state law criminalizing the burning of a cross “with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons.” While most of his colleagues focused on First Amendment law, Thomas offered a different view. The law was intended to counteract “almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South” by the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups, he reminded the courtroom during oral argument. “This was a reign of terror, and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror.” 

When the case was decided several months later, Thomas went further in a lone dissent, arguing that cross burning was part and parcel of that racist terrorism and therefore deserved no protection under the First Amendment. “Those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point,” he wrote. 

It was not an opinion cheered by free speech advocates, although that does not disqualify it from the realm of civil rights. Nor would it be the last time Thomas offered a history lesson about race in America. 

In 2010, after the Supreme Court struck down several campaign finance restrictions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court came under intense criticism for harboring an alleged pro-corporate bias. In response, Thomas reminded those critics that the cause of campaign finance regulation was not exactly squeaky clean.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Thomas told an audience at Stetson University College of Law, referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, an early campaign finance law sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Tillman, a leading Southern Progressive and notorious white supremacist. “Tillman was from South Carolina,” Thomas continued, “and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks, and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” 

But that verbal jab was nothing compared to Thomas’ contribution to the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. Chicago, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms constrains state and local governments via the 14th Amendment. In his concurrence, Thomas once again reached for the history books, this time tracing the 14th Amendment’s origins to the antislavery movement and the efforts of the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress, who sought to force the former Confederate states to respect fundamental rights after the Civil War—including the right to keep and bear arms, a provision of particular importance to the recently freed slaves now facing the South’s incipient Jim Crow regime.

The Train Kept A-Rollin'

One of the most interesting things to come out of CPAC over the weekend was Charles Murray's impromptu speech (he declined to read his prepared remarks) on how the GOP should freely accept gay marriage and abortion.  Murray, a social scientist, is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and usually comes out with arguments that go against the liberal orthodoxy, which no doubt makes him popular in conservative circles.  Here is Murray in his own words:

The question on his mind was “How can conservatives make their case after the election?,” and the answer he wanted to share was drawn from his experience with his own four children. They range in age, he said, from twenty-three to forty-three. While they share many of his views on limiting the size of government, and supporting free enterprise, he said, “Not one of them thought of voting for a Republican President” in the last election. Their disenchantment with the Republican Party was not specifically because of Mitt Romney, he added, but because, “They consider the Party to be run by anti-abortion, anti-gay, religious nuts.” 

“With gay marriage,” he went on, “I think the train has left the station.”

Senator Portman would concur. 

Murray says that he "'was dead-set against gay marriage when it was first broached,'" and he thought that what all gays "'want is the wedding, and the party, and the honeymoon—but not this long thing we call marriage.'”  Murray says his mind was changed when "'he had discovered that the gay couples he knew with children were not just responsible parents; they were “excruciatingly responsible parents.'”

But, as with my problems with Sen. Portman, Murray's argument is based on nothing more than passions and majoritarianism.  Just because someone may want something, no matter how deeply felt, is  not a standard of right and wrong.  A kleptomaniac would surely like to steal anything he sees simply because he "wants it."  In no way does this make the actions of such a person right or just.  And simply because a majority of people want something again does not make it right.  Might does not make right.

Murray's stance on abortion:

The disquiet grew further as Murray suggested that abortion, too, was an issue better left, for the most part, to “moral suasion” rather than criminalization. Personally, he said, he regarded abortion as a “grave” moral issue, and favored some restrictions. He said he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and abortions regulated at the state level. But, he said, “the extent to which they can be legislated remains in question.” Rather than absolutely banning abortion, as many conservatives in the room clearly preferred, Murray quoted his friend Karl Hess, a Goldwater speechwriter turned “charming anarchist,” on the idea that abortions should be thought of as homicides—with the caveat that, “It’s a murder—it’s a homicide—but sometimes homicide is justified.” Murray said that he’d long thought that Hess was too harsh, but now thought that his language was right.

I honestly could not make sense of the reasoning here.  He begins by decrying the need to criminalize abortion buts ends with the claim that abortion should be regarding as homicide, which of course is within the jurisdiction of law enforcement officials... .  He also injects in this analysis the typical conservative "federalism" argument--that abortion should be left to the states--seemingly without the knowledge of the current political and legal landscape.  It was in fact Roe that duly overturned laws in the 50 states.  We can't go back to the state of affairs before Roe without a resolution at the federal level.  

I thought this was perhaps the most important insight Murray had in the course of his speech:  “'I’m not known as an astute electoral analyst.'”

All Aboard!

Regarding Sen. Portman's move to support gay marriage, I didn't realize at the time of the writing of my earlier post on the subject that Portman had authored an editorial in the Columbus Dispatch the same day (I only quoted from the piece written about the move).  Since it is important to understand a person as they understand themselves, I want to devote some time to see if the foundation of his argument is anything other than the relativism that I ascribed to it in my earlier post.

Two paragraphs in, Portman recounts how his son told him and his wife that he is in fact gay:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

But an argument for gay marriage shouldn't hinge on the fact of "orientation."  Whether something such as gay marriage is a positive good or not is not at all proved by the fact that some people are gay.  Let's move on.

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

This typifies a basic conservative "faith" argument and should give one pause to wonder if Sen. Portman thought seriously at all about gay marriage before his son's coming out.  The argument, as seen here, is rooted in the person's "faith" or "faith tradition" and implies that that is probably the sole ground for anyone to be against gay marriage or abortion, for instance.  But maybe even Portman himself is ignorant of the Declaration of Independence's ground on nature and nature's God, or reason and revelation.  Natural law or natural right does not depend on any sectarian claims, and it allows me to write the sentences I am currently typing out.  By cosigning being against gay marriage to matters of simple belief, Portman agrees with those mainly on the Left about those who are anti-gay marriage; he's just nicer about it and doesn't call them bigots.

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

But believing that we are all children of God doesn't follow that we must condone everything our children may do.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

Conservatives are right to believe in "personal liberty" and "minimal government interference" but surely Portman is not a hedonist.  Personal liberty does not condone theft or murder; that defense would be laughed out of a court room.  In words of Abraham Lincoln, echoing James Wilson, we do not have a right to do a wrong.  But I guess since being anti-gay marriage comes merely from "belief" then none of this matters too much since no actual rational thought seems to be part of the decision making.

Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and that’s been the case in my family. Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.

An invocation of Ronald Reagan; I am surprised it didn't come earlier.  But just because more people are in support of gay marriage is not an argument about its rightness.  This is simple majoritarianism, which unfortunately is the foundation for many arguments on the Left and Right.  I should note that a simple belief, if you will, in the majority seems to be one main supports of Portman's pro-gay marriage argument.

Since gay marriage seems to be all but inevitable to Sen. Portman, it seems he had a train to catch.

Sen. Portman Backs Into Relativism

This morning, the Columbus Dispatch broke the news that Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a former defender of DOMA, has evolved so to speak and now backs gay marriage.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Rob Portman has renounced his opposition to gay marriage, telling reporters from Ohio newspapers yesterday that he changed his position after his son Will told him and his wife, Jane, that he is gay.

[...] 

In an interview in his Senate office, Portman acknowledged that his support for same-sex marriage is a “change in my position that I have had in Congress and also here in the Senate the last couple of years.” But he said that change “came about through a process” after Will, now a junior at Yale University, told his parents in February 2011 that he is gay. 

“It allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister have,” Portman said.

But even if one is a die-hard supported of gay marriage, Portman's argument is so vacuous that it does nothing to further the argument why gay marriage should be legalized across the nation.  (I realize Portman wants to leave it up to the states but because of the current legal landscape, this is really a moot point.  Like Lincoln said, we are either going to be all of one thing or all the other.)

Kate Pitrone at Postmodern Conservative tells us why:

The state of Portman’s son’s sexuality has nothing to do with what is right for society. If his son were a womanizer who had many children by many different women, do you suppose Portman would promote polygamy so his son could marry all of those women and make “honest women” of them and save his grandchildren from the stigma of illegitimacy? I don’t think so. Anyone following his heart when it means ignoring his head becomes muddled; we want to love our children whatever they do. We do love, despite what they do, but that does not mean we must condone what they do. Portman has fallen prey to relativism, as the word can be variously understood.

Portman's mind was changed based on something personal to himself and his family; but in no way does that justify why it would be good for anyone else.

Arguments today tend to revolve around the personal, which is then transmogrified into a political argument, which even on a cursory inspection fails to truly justify any change whatsoever (see my  posts on political language).  As Mollie Hemingway has observed, Portman's argument for his change of mind represents "the Oprahfication of political philosophy."

A Different Take

Rep. Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, has a different take from Sen. Rand Paul on what Republican foreign policy should look like in the future.  I will quote the entire article in full because it bears reading:

As conservatives wrestle with the question of their movement’s commitment to national security, one young war veteran made the case for a strong national defense and Ronald Reagan’s entreaty that America pursue “peace through strength.” Speaking Thursday morning at CPAC, freshman congressman Tom Cotton of Arkansas tried directly to appeal to those conservatives wary and weary of American wars against radical Islamic terrorists.

“I know there is war weariness among the American people, just like there is war weariness among conservatives, and in this audience, no doubt,” said Cotton. “It’s no surprise, though, that the American people are war weary when their commander in chief is the weariest of them all.” 

As a member of a panel entitled “Too Many American Wars? Should We Fight Anywhere and Can We Afford it?,” Cotton attempted to answer those three questions.

“Are we fighting too many wars? I would say, ‘no,’” he said. “We’re fighting one war, and it’s a war against radical Islam and jihad. It’s not a war against terror alone. Terror is a technique or a tactic, as the professor said. It’s a war against specific people, radical Islamic jihadists who are trying to use terror to defeat the United States.” 

Cotton criticized President Obama’s approach to “ending” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Our president often says ten years of war are ending,” he said. “Wars are not movies. They do not end. They are won or they are lost. The quickest way to end a war is to lose it. And I don’t intend to let that happen to America on my watch as long as I’m in Washington, D.C.” 

On the question of whether America should fight anywhere, Cotton answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that “we should not fight everywhere.” He cited the advances in modern technology and communications that indicate the fight against radical Islam need not always be waged through traditional deployment of troops. 

Finally, in a moment when conservatives are focused on the national debt and budget deficits, Cotton argued that military spending is not just affordable but necessary.
“We can afford it, and yes, we must afford it. We certainly have a staggering national debt. Our military is not responsible for that,” Cotton said. Money, he said, is not the deficit that harms our defense efforts. 

“We have the national wealth to do so,” Cotton continued. “We have the manpower to win the war. We have the material to win the war. The question is, do we have the most essential element to combat power? Do we have the will to win the war? Our enemies certainly have that will. They question now whether we do.”

Cotton concluded, “We as conservatives must have the will to win.”

If decent and reasoned opposition to Sen. Paul's view's becomes prominent in the Republican party, it looks as though Rep. Cotton will be leading the charge.

We Are Not All Marxists

In continuing in the same vein as my post yesterday on the sad state of political language, I turn to a post by the otherwise great Charles C.W. Cooke from NRO on the egregious Ezra Klein, the same Ezra Klein who doesn't understand the Constitution because it "was written more than 100 years ago."  Cooke goes on the attack here:

In his peculiar reaction to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, peppily titled “Social engineering with a side of deficit reduction,” Ezra Klein writes:

It is Ryan’s unusual ideology, and not the specific state of our finances, that justifies this budget. Ryan’s view is that the federal government is strangling our community,

People of Ezra Klein’s bent have an unfortunate habit of behaving as if the current state of affairs — however new or transient — represents the inviolable tradition of the country, and that the actual traditions of the country constitute a radical plot to overthrow the establishment. For all of American history there was no Obamacare, and it hasn’t even kicked in yet; now, to get rid of it is “social engineering.” The HHS mandate is less than a year old; to oppose it is to wish to drag women back to the Dark Ages. Strong communities and limited government is the American way; but Paul Ryan’s defense of this makes him a radical. It’s preposterous, and it brings to mind that hackneyed but true observation that to control the past is to control the future. Progressives have learned the hard way that if they want Americans to buy what they are selling, they have to make it seem as if their plans are consistent with America’s ideal. And so the new becomes the old, and the old becomes the new. Move Tocqueville to the fiction section, Ezra.

Good stuff.  But the language problem shows up in this assessment:

Tellingly, Klein refers to “Ryan’s unusual ideology.” Unusual? Does Klein mean to suggest that not spending trillions that we don’t have is “unusual”? Does he mean that how America has worked for most of its history — and pretty well, thank you — is “unusual” now that it’s 2013? That notions of community doing things that government should not are “unusual”? I wonder. And what should we make of that “ideology” word? This dismissal is particularly telling, not because Ryan isn’t ideological — he is — but because so is Ezra Klein. So is everyone. Anyone who privileges one value over another (liberty over security, or growth over redistribution, for example) is an ideologue. Anybody who believes in any individual right whatsoever is an ideologue. Anyone who believes in any form of equality is an ideologue. Klein’s reaction betrays an arrogant, rotten worldview — widely shared among his ilk. Are we really expected to buy that doing the opposite of Ryan’s plan isn’t “ideological”? That there’s no ideology behind the status quo? That there’s nothing but reason behind what Klein and his acolytes wish would happen? That Klein’s desired path for America is based on pure analysis?

If we believe Paul Ryan when he says that his politics are based on God and nature, reason and revelation as it was for the Founders, then calling that political philosophy an "ideology" drains all meaning from those words.

Richard Reeb had a great essay on this topic that I read some years back, and his meditation on the word "ideology," along with the equally egregious terms "values" and "culture," deserves notice:

[Ideology] too is a contribution of German thought [like the terms culture and values], particularly Karl Marx, who understood ideology as the rationalization of the ruling class for its dominance. He is famous for describing politics as nothing more than the organized oppression of one class by another. The real force in human life, he argued, was control of the means of production. With the Communist revolution, supposedly no one would control production and the state could be reduced to mere administration with no more politics.

[...]

Whenever someone influenced by the alleged insights of Marxism seeks to discredit an opposing viewpoint, he will call it an ideology. The object may be similar to Marx’s, viz., that the opposing view rationalizes a class interest, or that the viewpoint is unrealistic or at variance with the facts. 

Ideology is surely not with difficulties, but it is often applied unfairly to political philosophies which are not only not rationalizations, unrealistic or at variance with the facts, but which are grounded in human nature. The best known to us is found in the Declaration of Independence.

Reeb's argument on how liberals like to throw around the term ideology to discredit their political foes seems prescient when compared to what Klein wrote about Paul Ryan.  But the larger picture is as Reeb says:  the truths proclaimed in the Declaration about the foundation of political life in the highest sense is not an ideology at all.  In its essence, it is the absolute antithesis of ideology in that those truths are grounded in a permanent human nature that is self evident for those creatures who are capable of reason.

Simply pointing out the trite observation that we are all ideological undercuts the entire foundation of the conservative argument.

The Wrong Side of Things

One of my pet peeves in politics has to do with the current state of our political language, which has deteriorated in recent decades to say the least.  One particular saying that is perhaps one of the worst ones is this common refrain that is used by people on both the Left and Right:  "We are on the right side of history."  But History doesn't determine right and wrong, good or bad.  It looked very a long time that chattel slavery was on the right side of history, at least until the Civil War.  In Cuba since 1958, it looked as though Fidel Castro has been on the right side of history.  Anyway, I am sure you get my point.

Reason rooted in nature and nature's God is the only way in which we can the rightness or justness of anything in this world.  Combining the is and the ought together obscures the way things are with the way things should be.  The Founders certainly did not think in these terms when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and especially neither should conservatives who today seek to conserve those principles.

More Thoughts on the Old Guard

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary has more on why the public berating by Sens. McCain and Graham of Sens. Paul and Cruz and Rep. Justin Amash does more damage than good to their cause:

But at this point that remark will do McCain more harm than it will the targets of his wrath. It will be seen as yet another indication that McCain and others who agree with him just don’t understand why Paul’s filibuster struck a nerve with so many in his party’s grass roots and inspired the admiration of many on the other side of the aisle as well. The word “wacko” signifies a lack of seriousness and the idea that those who fit the description are out of the political mainstream. The problem is that McCain, Graham and others who oppose Paul’s foreign policy views don’t seem to grasp that what is happening now is not merely excrescence of a marginal movement but the beginning of a serious policy debate about what Republicans believe about foreign policy. And the sooner he, and others who don’t want the GOP to drift away from being the party that stands for a strong America on the international stage, stop dismissing their opponents and start engaging them on the issues the better off they and the country will be.

I think Tobin's exactly right that Republicans who don't necessarily agree with everything Paul stands for in the foreign policy realm will undoubtedbly be drawn more to his arguments simply because they want to do the opposite of whatever Sens. McCain and Graham stand for.  (Although I harbor doubts about what a Paul foreign policy would look like, much of the McCain/Graham foreign policy has been bad to mediocre at best.)  This is unfortunate because, as Tobin points out, Paul's real aim is to fundamentally change the trajectory of modern Republican foreign policy.

But the notion that all this fuss was about the Constitution and the right of due process is a cover for Paul’s basic disagreement with the GOP’s long consensus about foreign and defense policy. Paul spent much of Wednesday speculating about the possibility that an unprincipled future American president could use a drone to kill his political opponents or to punish dissidents of the Jane Fonda variety. That fired the imagination of paranoids on both the right and the left who are always ready to believe Big Brother is about to haul them off to jail. But the cheers Paul received went beyond that limited set to those who are uncomfortable with more than just the theoretical possibility of a drone attack on an America in the United States. It’s important to understand that Paul’s issue is not so much with drones as it is with a policy of what he calls “perpetual war” against Islamist terrorism and the entire concept of a strong U.S. policy to protect our influence, allies and trade in the Middle East.

Tobin cites a speech Paul gave at the Heritage Foundation a couple weeks ago as the key to understanding what the filibuster was really all about.  In the speech, Paul said the following on what U.S. foreign policy towards Iran should look like:

No one, myself included, wants to see a nuclear Iran. Iran does need to know that all options are on the table. But we should not pre-emptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option.

Much of the speech is dedicated to ascertaining the true meaning of George F. Kennan's policy of containment, which Paul says something approximating that policy should form foundation of the U.S.'s policy in combatting Islamic radicalism world-wide.

Though Rand Paul is different in many respects than his father, Ron Paul, the former Paul is still, in important ways, trying to orient U.S. foreign policy towards something that would most likely meet his father's approval.  How the son differs from his father is in the virtue of prudence, something Ron Paul has probably never heard of before.  No doubt, Sen Paul's filibuster is the very public beginning to putting together the principles that will guide Republican foreign policy in the future.  This is most definitely a debate worth having.

Old Guard, Meet the New Guard

In response to Sen. Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster last week, Sens. McCain and Graham, the usual suspects in these matters, publicly blasted Sen. Paul to the media.  Here is what McCain said to reporters shortly after the end of the filibuster:

McCain quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that slammed Paul’s filibuster on the Obama administration’s drone use, including a line that said “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

And Lindsey Graham has this to say:

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”

And he went on to explain why Paul's filibuster made him swich his vote from a "no" to a "yes" in cofirming John Brennan to head the CIA:

“I was going to vote against Brennan until the filibuster. So he picked up one vote!” Graham said. “It’s become a referendum on the drone program.”

Though I didn't fully agree with Sen. Paul's argument--that the Constitution forbids the use of lethal force inside its borders against American citizens who work with the enemies of the United States--Sens. McCain and Graham's thundering from the pulpit against Paul and other Senate freshmen who helped him out--including Sens. Cruz and Lee--falls completely flat.  Paul Mirengoff gives us some reasons why:

Let’s start with McCain. Wasn’t he the guy who recently rebuked Ted Cruz for making disrespectful comments about Chuck Hagel? Ridiculing Paul and his libertarian supporters, on the Senate floor, strikes me as inappropriately disrespectful. 

Paul’s filibuster may have been a political stunt or it may have been a genuine expression of the full extent of his outrage. Perhaps it had elements of both. In any case, McCain should not assume the worst. By doing so in inflammatory language, McCain makes it look like his beef is personal. With McCain, it usually is. 

As for Graham, his question — where were Paul, Cruz, and those like Marco Rubio and Jerry Moran who supported the filibuster, during the Bush era — is easily answered. They weren’t in the U.S. Senate. 

In Paul’s case, there’s every reason to believe he would have opposed Bush’s use of drones. Consistency isn’t the junior Senator from Kentucky’s problem when it comes to national security.

In addition, there is no reason why McCain and Graham had to publicly denounce Paul.  They could have just as easily as kept their mouths shut and shared these thoughts with each other in private.  They still don't seem to get the way the media works against Republicans in particular and conservatism in general.

Lastly, why Graham would switch his vote on something as important as who will be the next CIA Director because of the conduct and words of someone on which that vote had exactly zero to do with is a complete mystery.  The vote simply wasn't a "referendum on the drone program," Senator Graham to the contrary notwithstanding.  

Sen. Paul Goes to Washington

As I hope you have heard, Senator Rand Paul the other day had a 13 hour filibuster going on in the Senate regarding President Obama's nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA.  The main focus of the filibuster centered on statements by A.G. Eric Holder and others in the Obama Administration on drone warfare and the constitutionality of using drones to go after U.S. citizens inside U.S. borders.  Prior to the filibuster on Wednesday, before a Senate panel, Sen. Ted Cruz was able to get AG Holder to admit that drone attacks inside the country on citizens who pose no threat to the United State would indeed be unconstitutional.

As to the filibuster itself, I wish Sen. Paul would've picked a different topic because Holder is more right than he knows regarding the use of drones in and outside of the country.  The problem with the current administration is how their policies leave open the use of drones for law enforcement purposes instead of  simply being cabined to the theater of war.  John Yoo has more on this significant problem:

Holder’s first mistake is that he thinks that the use of force by drones, no matter where or against whom, is governed by due process. Recall the Justice Department white paper on drones, which asserted that lethal force could not be used against al-Qaeda members unless they could not be captured, harm to the United States was imminent, and due process allows the attack — concepts that govern law-enforcement officers who might need to shoot an attacking criminal, but have never governed the use of force by the military in wartime. Drones don’t change this equation — the same rules should govern snipers, artillery, aerial, and missile attack, which all also attack the enemy from a distance and often by surprise. But since Holder has made the claim that the drone attacks abroad somehow meet law-enforcement standards, it is an easy step for him to say that those same diluted, weakened standards don’t pose much barrier to the use of drones at home. 

Instead, what Holder should have said is that the U.S. would only be able to use drones on U.S. soil under the same conditions it might use military force domestically — to stop an invasion by a foreign country or an attack. And it is not because due process somehow allows it, but because the nation is entitled to use military force against foreign attack. So it is not just December 7 or September 11 that uniquely call for military force because the U.S. is responding to an attack on the nation. What about an invasion, as in the War of 1812, or the Civil War, or, on a smaller scale, a situation like the Mumbai terrorist attacks where groups of heavily armed terrorists attacked high-profile, civilian targets not with airliners, but with light arms? If the federal government can use military force, such as troops or helicopters to stop those kinds of attacks, surely it can use drones. But where Holder and this administration are causing fear is because, if they believe the use of drones now, abroad, meet law-enforcement standards, then they believe they could use drones in similar situations domestically to enforce the laws, not to respond to attack. And that is manifestly wrong as a legal matter as well as mistaken as a matter of policy.

Even though I disagree with aspects of Sen. Paul's argument, the use of the filibuster itself was a great thing.  Steve Hayward discusses this further:

I agree...that Rand Paul is playing at a dubious game here, but I would add that he has done something significant along the way: he rehabilitated the filibuster, which has been under assault for some time now by the “reformers.” And he did it the old-fashioned way–by standing on the floor of the Senate holding forth about a matter of principle, rather than the faux-filibusters of recent years where people hold up appointments or legislation by a paper “filibuster” that nonetheless allows the Senate to proceed with other business. Though it may not have been Rand Paul’s motive, he may have just laid down a roadblock against the reformers who want to make the Senate into a purely majoritarian institution. The fact that some on the left sympathize with Rand Paul’s cause here will further flummox the reformers.

The filibuster also brings to the forefront the hypocrisy of many liberals like President Obama who evidently think that the waterboarding of three terrorists in Guantanamo Bay (which by the way did result in gaining access to crucial information that would eventually lead to the killing of Osama Bin Laden) was the source of all evil in the modern world but that sending drones into another country and killing a man who was a U.S. citizen (in my eyes he renounced his citizenship when he began helping Al-Qaeda) was no problem at all.  One seems quite more severe an action than the other.  Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps even most importantly, Sen. Paul showed that politics in the high sense is not dead.  Republicans are not doomed to die off like the Whigs did in the early years of the 1850s.  If they bring arguments to the forefront in reasoned, impassioned tones that aim to persuade people who are capable of reason, then they will find the benefits to be bountiful.

Unbelievable

The following was part of a statement released by Fidel Castro in light of the death of his partner in crime Hugo Chavez:

President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment. During his 14-year tenure, Chávez joined other leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean to create new forms of integration. Venezuelan poverty rates were cut in half, and millions received identification documents for the first time allowing them to participate more effectively in their country's economic and political life. 

At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.

Oh I'm sorry, that statement actually didn't come from Castro but instead it came from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.  Let that sink in a little bit.

An Embarrassment to State and Country

The man owning the twitter account below serves as a U.S. Representative from New York and had the following to say about the death of Hugo Chavez:

More from ABC on this loser:

Serrano, whose New York district covers part of the Bronx, also released a lengthy written statement praising Chavez and recounting an invited visit to his district in 2005. 

“I met President Chavez in 2005 when he came to my district at my invitation,” Serrano wrote. “His focus on the issues faced by the poor and disenfranchised in his country made him a truly revolutionary leader in the history of Latin America. He understood that after 400 years on the outside of the established power structure looking in, it was time that the poor had a chance at seeing their problems and issues addressed. His core belief was in the dignity and common humanity of all people in Venezuela and in the world.” 

Serrano recounted that Chavez offered discounted home heating oil to struggling residents in his district. He acknowledged that Chavez was a controversial figure, while noting that “it is important to remember that he was democratically-elected many times in elections that were declared free and fair by international monitors.”

What does this say about the electorate who voted for this guy?

Brain Dead and Predictable

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez died today at the age of 58.  The tyrannical leader cozied up with the likes of Fidel Castro, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, and former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

Guess what the Washington Post's headline was regarding this news?

"Hugo Chavez, passionate but polarizing Venezuelan president, dead at 58." (Emphasis added.)

Really.

(h/t Paul Mirengoff)

Words Do Matter

In his Impromptus column today, Jay Nordlinger really comes out strong in his first observation, which is on the failings of modern liberal foreign policy.  Front and center is the newly minted Secretary of State John Kerry, who is the perfect representation of the Obama foreign policy in every way:

You may have heard an important statement by our new secretary of state, John Kerry: “Iran is a country with a government that was elected and that sits in the United Nations.” Okay. But on this matter of “elected,” I think of something that Jim Woolsey, the old CIA chief, once said. 

“Arafat was essentially ‘elected’ the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as democratically as Hitler, who at least had actual opponents.” 

It matters, what Kerry said. It matters greatly to Iranian oppositionists and political prisoners. They are no doubt extremely disheartened. The American secretary of state has blessed the dictatorship that rules them, and against which they’re struggling, as elected and legitimate. 

Prisoners find out about such things, as we know from Natan Sharansky and many, many others. In his Gulag memoir, Sharansky remembers how “the KGB guys” taunted him about the death of Andrei Amalrik, an exiled dissident. By the same token, he and his fellow prisoners were heartened by good news. 

In their cells, they somehow found out that President Reagan had declared 1983 the Year of the Bible. For a while, Sharansky was able to study the Bible with a prisoner named Volodya. They called their sessions “Reaganite readings.” 

Andrei Sakharov once told Jeane Kirkpatrick that her name was known in every cell of the Gulag. Why? Because she had named the names of political prisoners on the floor of the U.N. Kirkpatrick was a very different kind of official from John Kerry. 

What do you think they know in Evin — the prison in Tehran that is one of the darkest and most evil places on earth? Many people would rather be shot in the head on Evin’s steps than enter that place, for even a day. Do the prisoners know what Kerry has said?
Would he ever mention their names, à la Kirkpatrick? Would President Obama? 

Be very clear that what American leaders do matters greatly. Every word is heard, every gesture is noticed. George W. Bush used to send Nowruz greetings — i.e., New Year’s greetings — to the Iranian people. Barack Obama, when he came in, sent them to “the people and leaders of Iran.” He also referred to Iran as “the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which is what the mullahs insist that country be. He said that he sought engagement “grounded in mutual respect.” 

Mutual respect. Between a free, democratic country and a regime that, among other things, stones girls to death for the crime of having been gang-raped? Really? Mutual respect?
When protesters massed in the streets after Iran’s fraudulent election in June 2009, they chanted, “Obama, Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us!” Two years later, Sharansky called Obama’s stance during all this “maybe one of the biggest betrayals of people’s freedom in modern history.” At the critical moment, “the leader of the Free World said, For us, the most important thing is engagement with the regime, so we don’t want a change of regime.” 

It seems that the United States does not really do freedom anymore. Freedom is passé. That’s just fine with most of our Left, and with significant portions of our Right. Too bad. But maybe some others will hold high the torch?

Agreed.

Newly Revised Obama Edition

Mark Helprin has revised Psalm 23 in light of the wisdom of the Age of Obama:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of debt, I fear no bankruptcy, for Obama is my shepherd. He prepareth a table of food stamps before me, and maketh me lie down beside waters He hath cleansed and seas He hath made recede, even though the bad Republicans wisheth the earth to be burnt unto a cinder, and will not buy the electric car that is good, for it hath zero emissions, and receiveth its power from a power plant, which hath not zero emissions, but the ways of the President are mysterious. 

He hath told the stubborn Israelites, evil builders of apartments, that they know not their own interests and He does, and know not what they do, when they fear the nuclear weapon of the Persians. The ways of the President are mysterious. He alloweth the Persians to get the nuclear weapon (unless He hath something up His sleeve), for He knoweth that when they behold Him they will stay their hand, and not burn the Israelites unto a cinder, as they pronounce. 

Yea, though Bernanke maketh funny money that will not compute, Obama prepareth a statistical table in front of the bad Republicans that showeth it will, if only they have faith. Fear not the Hellenes and the path they have trod. Though for sure we shall follow them, the President will be our sword, and our shield. His Hillary Rodham and his staff, they comfort us. 

Fear not the Chinois, whose power waxes as ours wanes, for someday thy children's children shall journey over the sea that Obama hath made recede, west of the land of Geffen and Famous Amos, to build railroads for Beijing. Then the Third World will have inherited the earth, and the strong will have been laid low, which is good, and which is also the Democratic platform. 

Verily, we should be like the meek of the earth, and follow the commands of the President, the Amalekites, the EPA, and the IRS, which taketh our money, which is good, for we know not what to do with it. And Obama does, for you did not buildeth that. Once, we were slaves in the land of Reagan (and if you attributeth the "Reagan" deficits to increased military spending and lowered tax rates, tryeth accounting for the changes in military expenditure and tax revenues in the Reagan years, for, lo, when combined they yieldeth a surplus). Then, we were sinners, in spending our own money for what we thought was our own good. But now we are free, for the President spendeth it for us, and He maketh miracles, for, lo, He roasteth invisible chickens, and, lo, He spendeth money that existeth not, that Bernanke printeth. And, lo, it buys us stuff, for now. 

Yea, though I accumulate debt higher than the mountains of Gilboa, and the deadbeats skip like rams, I shall not want, for Bernanke maketh funny money, and the President smiles upon the land, but not upon the bad Republicans. For they wisheth to live within their means, which surely must be evil. And what would you expect from people who are suspicious of Social Security? And wisheth to burn the earth unto a cinder. 

But arithmetic notwithstanding, I will dwell in the house of Obama all the days of my life. (Why not four terms, and what about Michelle? For the Constitution liveth.) And, the earth having been purified, surely it will be good when—and where do I apply for—government assistance will be the only thing left.

Good stuff.

No Such Thing as a Coincidence

Sorry for the intermittent nature of my posts lately.  Work has been seeping into the hours well after 5 and some bigs things have been happening in regards to my future plans.  Anyway, I was reading over this post on Richochet by Dave Carter and came to this paragraph:

The administration has stated that, "Narrowing the income gap is essential for ensuring social justice and harmony. We need to raise income levels of the poor and adjust taxes on the excessively wealthy." The reality: That statement was made by the State Council of the People's Republic of China, in accordance with principles of the Communist Party of China and, by inference, with those of Karl Marx. Yet it reads like a Barack Obama speech or the Democratic National Committee's platform. Coincidence or a common cause? 

And then there's this:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, (D-CA) warned that sequestration would cost some 170 million American jobs. Result: We learn that there are only 135 million to 143 million jobs to be had in America. Coincidence or a typical appeal to her constituents?

There's always been the tendency of those in the elected branches to, both publicly but much more privately, thumb their noses at the electorate and lament the stupidity and idiocy of the calls and letters that stream into their offices.  Civic education in this country undoubtedly needs to improve by leaps and bounds, but the kind of pablum offered by Rep. Waters makes the kind of lamenting I described above a self-fulfilling prophesy.